Get chirp (read-back)

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the verification purpose, which is useful context, but it does not disclose return contents, missing-id behavior, or any auth/rate-limit considerations.

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 efficient sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then gives the purpose. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with a readOnly annotation, the description is enough for selection and invocation, but it omits what the read returns and how missing or invalid ids are handled. With no output schema, those gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. "By id" only restates the schema property name and requiredness without explaining format, source, or lookup semantics beyond the schema's UUID format.

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 states a specific verb (read) and resource (chirp) scoped by id, and the read-back framing distinguishes it from write siblings like create_chirp and update_chirp. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"To verify it posted" gives a clear intended usage context: checking that a chirp was successfully created and can be retrieved. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternative read tools, but no exclusions are needed for this simple case.

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