get_details

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. It states the tool retrieves details for matching tokens but doesn't describe what 'details' include (e.g., token name, number, expiration), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and parameter details in a structured 'Args' section. It avoids unnecessary words, but the parameter explanation could be slightly more detailed without losing efficiency. Overall, it's well-structured and 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?

Given the tool's complexity (filtered retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how results are formatted, or any behavioral traits like pagination or errors. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'pattern' matches 'part of the name or token number,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type. However, it doesn't provide examples, format details, or constraints, leaving some ambiguity. With one parameter and partial compensation, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get the details of all the OTP tokens matching the pattern.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('OTP tokens'), and scope ('matching the pattern'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_otp_tokens' (which might list all tokens without filtering), so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_otp_tokens' (for unfiltered listing) or 'calculate_otp_codes' (for code generation), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied through the pattern parameter but not explicitly stated.

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