Get a single tool

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes what is returned but does not mention error behavior on no match, partial match ambiguity, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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, concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every part is essential, and there is no wasted language.

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 a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meaning. It could mention handling of not found or multiple partial matches, but is largely sufficient.

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 100% with a basic parameter description. The description adds value by clarifying that 'name' can be exact or partial and that results include 'section and domain', which goes beyond the schema.

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 specific verb 'Return' and resource 'details for one tool', including scope 'by name (exact or partial)' and includes what details are returned ('section and domain'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'list_sections' or 'search_tools'.

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 implies usage when you have a tool name and want its details, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other tools like 'search_tools' or what to do if the name is ambiguous. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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