Get Widget

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Retrieve' and GET method align with that. No additional behavioral context is provided (e.g., error behavior, authorization), but given the strong annotation coverage, the description doesn't need to over-explain.

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?

A single sentence with the endpoint and action, no fluff. Ideal length and 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?

For a simple single-resource retrieval with strong annotations and a fully documented parameter, the description covers the essential usage. No output schema is present, but the tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The sole parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema with a description and constraints, and the description's 'by its unique ID' adds no new semantic information. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 explicitly states 'Retrieve a single widget by its unique ID' with a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (widget), and the path GET /api/widgets/{id} clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/create/update/delete tools.

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?

It clearly implies usage when an ID is available for a single widget, distinguishing from gorgias_list_widgets. However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, so it misses the '5' bar.

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