get_facility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true, so the description's role is to add context. It explains the tool returns one facility in full and lists the expected fields. It does not contradict annotations. No mention of auth needs or rate limits, but the read-only nature and field list are sufficient for safe selection.

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 detailed yet efficient, using bullet points and a single introductory sentence. It avoids redundant fluff and front-loads the core purpose. Slightly wordy in the example sentence, but overall well-structured for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, the description lists many returned fields but omits the exact structure (e.g., types, nesting). The boolean parameters are not explained. The tool has 3 optional params and many siblings; the description provides adequate context for distinguishing from search_facilities but lacks full parameter documentation. It is moderately complete.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only indirectly explains facility_id via example calls (id=equinix-dc1-ashburn, slug=digital-realty-iad8). It does not explain include_power or include_nearby; though the returned fields mention 'power capacity' and 'peer facilities', there is no explicit link to the boolean parameters. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 specifies the tool returns 'full metadata for one facility' and lists 11+ data fields. It explicitly distinguishes from search_facilities, stating 'do NOT use to search or list many facilities (use search_facilities)'. Additives like 'Full metadata' and example calls solidify the intended use.

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 clear when-to-use ('Get one facility's full metadata') and when-not-to-use ('do NOT use to search or list many facilities') with an explicit alternative tool (search_facilities). This is ideal guidance for an AI agent.

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