get_agency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists returned fields and implies a read-only operation, but omits error handling, slug format expectations, rate limits, or data freshness. The behavioral burden is only partially met.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the verb, resource, and deliverables with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the essential return fields. It could mention that slugs come from get_agencies, but the schema's example already provides necessary context, making this complete enough.

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 schema provides full coverage of the only parameter (slug) with a description and examples, so the description need not elaborate. It adds no additional meaning beyond calling the agency specific.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as a 'specific federal agency', clearly distinguishing it from sibling get_agencies which handles plural listing. It also enumerates the data fields returned (description, URL, recent document counts), leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 phrase 'specific federal agency' implies this tool is for retrieving details on one agency, as opposed to listing agencies. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_agencies or provide exclusions, though the intent is clear enough.

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