get_tag_details

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates the tool is non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the return content (masking configuration, status, timestamps) and platform constraints (Snowflake only, no Databricks support). No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, directly addressing purpose, scope, and usage. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary detail. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema explaining return values, the description sufficiently covers platform limitations, usage context, and what the tool returns. There are no gaps for a read-only tool with comprehensive schema information.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions 'by database, tag, and schema' which is already clear from the schema. The optional protection_type parameter is not discussed.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full details for a specific tag masking, specifies the platform (Snowflake only), and lists what is returned (masking configuration, status, timestamps). It also distinguishes itself from get_tag_details_by_group_id by noting the use of database/schema/tag instead of group_id.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('when you know the exact database/schema/tag but not the tag_group_id'), and notes a platform limitation (Snowflake only, Databricks tags not supported). It implicitly points to an alternative (get_tag_details_by_group_id) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it.

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