storyline_get_strategy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the default return is the full strategy and all line items, and that detail levels provide different verbosity (compact summary, or just id/status plus count). This is useful behavioral context, but it does not mention potential side effects (though fetching is likely safe) or permissions, which would make it more complete.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and then efficiently explains the details of the detail parameter. No fluff or redundant repetition of schema information.

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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description explains the different return shapes based on the detail parameter, which covers the main variations. However, it does not describe the exact structure of the 'full' response (e.g., whether it is an object with 'strategy' and 'lineItems' fields), which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. Still, the description is reasonably complete for the tool's simple read purpose.

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 schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The schema already describes the detail parameter thoroughly, including what 'short', 'medium', and 'full' return. The description adds a tool-specific note about the line-item count in 'short', but this is marginal over the schema's explanation. The other parameters (brandId, storylineId) are adequately covered by the schema, so the description does not need to add more.

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 the action: 'Fetch the strategy and line items for a storyline.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like storyline_get (which likely fetches base storyline info) and storyline_edit_strategy (which modifies).

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 clearly frames when to use this tool: when needing the strategy and line items for a storyline. It also explains the default full detail and the effects of the detail parameter, giving context for different use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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