get_shayari

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 does disclose filtering semantics ('active', 'Hindi-facing') but says nothing about error behavior — what happens when the ID doesn't exist or the record is inactive — nor the response shape. For a single-record fetch with zero annotation coverage, this is a 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core action and the key constraints ('active', 'Hindi-facing', 'by stable ID') all appear before any qualification, and 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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the parameter's meaning, and the selection constraint. It omits error/not-found behavior and return format, but given the low complexity these are minor gaps rather than blocking omissions.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the useful semantic that the ID is 'stable' (a persistent identifier), which clarifies the parameter's nature, but it gives no format, origin, or example of a valid ID. The value added over the bare minLength:1 schema is minimal.

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'), a specific resource ('shayari record'), and adds distinguishing constraints ('active', 'Hindi-facing', 'by stable ID'). This clearly differentiates it from the search siblings — an agent can tell get_shayari (fetch by ID) apart from search_shayari (query by criteria) without opening schemas.

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 the tool is for fetching a specific known record by ID, which suggests when it should be used over the search tools, but it never explicitly names the alternatives or states the condition for choosing one over the other. The contrast with search_shayari is implicit, not stated.

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