get_crossing_point

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that the return is 'markdown-formatted', which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the ID does not exist, or any error-prone aspects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 first two sentences are redundant ('Get details...' and 'This tool retrieves details...'), and the Args/Returns sections duplicate the schema. While the content is not excessively long, the repetition and lack of front-loaded key information reduce efficiency.

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?

This is a simple retrieval tool with an output schema available, so the description need not explain the return format in depth. However, it lacks any mention of error conditions, prerequisites, or usage context. Given the simplicity, it is minimally adequate but leaves room for better guidance on edge cases.

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 100% for the 'id' parameter, and the description repeats the same meaning without adding extra detail. The inclusion of a non-existent 'ctx' argument in the description but not in the schema adds minor confusion, but the schema itself is clear. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already documents the parameter.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('crossing point'), and the phrase 'specific crossing point' distinguishes it from list_crossing_points or other CRUD operations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, relying on the name and schema for 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios where retrieval is appropriate, nor any exclusions like 'use list_crossing_points to see all crossings first'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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