Get Facility Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: returns exactly one full facility, includes peer facilities nearby, and lists the specific metadata categories covered. It also communicates the tool is a targeted lookup, not a search.

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 three sentences but packs the return fields, use cases, example calls, and the key exclusion into a tight structure. No sentence is wasted, and the most important information (what it returns, one facility only) is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has a rich output schema, complete parameter documentation, and annotations covering safety. The description adds the missing contextual elements: concrete example calls, explicit scope restriction, and routing to search_facilities. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete example values (equinix-dc1-ashburn, digital-realty-iad8), clarifying that id is a usable alias, and noting that name is the fallback when no id/slug is known. These concrete examples help an agent construct valid calls.

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) with a clear resource (one facility) and enumerates exactly what fields are returned. It explicitly contrasts itself with search_facilities by stating it returns ONE facility, not a list, which makes sibling differentiation immediate.

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 gives concrete invocation examples ('Try: get_facility id=equinix-dc1-ashburn') and an explicit exclusion: 'do NOT use to search or list many facilities (use search_facilities).' This tells the agent exactly when to call this tool and which alternative to use instead.

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