Get Facility Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context about the response scope ('Full metadata for one facility') and the return of a single facility, plus examples of accepted identifiers. It does not contradict annotations, and the added details go beyond what annotations cover.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and the list of returned metadata. The second sentence gives two actionable examples, and the third sentence provides an explicit warning against misuse. Every sentence earns its place, though it is longer than strictly necessary.

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 single-facility getter, the description is complete: it lists the returned fields, explicitly restricts to one facility, and contrasts with the search alternative. With an output schema present (as indicated) and annotations covering safety, the description does not need to explain return formats. The provided examples further anchor usage.

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%—each parameter has a meaningful description (e.g., id is an alias for facility_id, name is a fallback lookup). The description adds little beyond the schema, but it does provide concrete example values (equinix-dc1-ashburn, digital-realty-iad8) and clarifies the expected usage in the 'Try:' lines. This is the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Full metadata for one facility' and enumerates the fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating 'Returns ONE facility in full; do NOT use to search or list many facilities (use search_facilities)', making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance with the exclusion 'do NOT use to search or list many facilities (use search_facilities)' and gives concrete usage examples with id and slug. It effectively communicates the primary alternative and the intended use case.

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