mc_getInterest

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'get interest details' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires specific permissions. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose. It earns its place but is on the edge of being too minimal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple retrieval tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain what 'interest details' are returned or any contextual information. An agent may not understand the meaning or scope of the response. The description is incomplete for effective tool use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a basic description (e.g., 'The unique ID for the audience (list)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high and description adds no extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get interest details' includes a verb and resource, but is vague. It does not differentiate from many sibling 'get' tools (e.g., mc_getMember, mc_getCampaign) which also retrieve details of specific entities. Without context, an AI agent cannot distinguish what an 'interest' represents in this domain.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are numerous sibling tools for getting different entities, and the description lacks any indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.