get_prospect_pool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait ('Read-only') and hints that the payload includes stages, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or behavior for a nonexistent ID. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required.

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?

Two short lines with zero filler; the read-only qualifier and the ID-sourcing instruction are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, safety profile, and prerequisite lookup. The only gap is not relating it to the overlapping retrieve_prospect_pools sibling, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as coming from list_prospect_pools, so the description merely restates the schema's guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no new syntax or format meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a prospect pool and its stages by ID'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from list_prospect_pools by casting that sibling as the lookup helper rather than the retrieval tool. An agent can tell it apart from list_prospect_pools and retrieve_prospect_pools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: to obtain the required ID, use list_prospect_pools and match by name. It does not, however, address when to prefer this tool over the similarly-named retrieve_prospect_pools sibling, leaving one alternative unaddressed.

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