Get enclosure details

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds value by disclosing what the response contains: variants, documents, images, and an optionValues field that drives the options workflow. It omits any note on payload size or how variant_limit interacts with response volume, which is the only meaningful gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the optionValues/options mechanics. The parenthetical enumeration of variant attributes is dense but earns its place; no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is technically optional, so the description's coverage of the response payload is a bonus rather than a requirement. What is missing is behavior around variant_limit and whether variants are truncated by default (50), which an agent needs in order to call this correctly for models with large variant sets.

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 coverage is 67% and the two documented params (`code`, `options`) are already well explained in the schema; the description reinforces the options→order-code workflow but adds little syntax the schema lacks. Crucially, `variant_limit` has no schema description and is never mentioned in the description, so the paging/truncation semantics remain undocumented in both places.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Full details for one enclosure") and enumerates the payload contents (specifications, drawing dimensions, documents, images, variants with order codes and barcodes). This clearly separates it from the sibling set, which is all plural/search-oriented (search_enclosures, filter_enclosures, compare_enclosures), leaving no ambiguity that this is the single-item detail fetch.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: fetch details once you have a known enclosure. The description gives concrete guidance on how to use `options` for a specific configuration, but never says when to prefer this over search_enclosures or filter_enclosures, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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