get_release

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source for behavioral information. It lists what the tool returns (release date, confirmed status, cancellation notice, contact, links) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or if there are any side effects. The tone implies a safe read operation, but the lack of explicit disclosure on safety or destructive potential limits transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and provides necessary details in the following sentences. It is slightly verbose but information-dense. Every sentence adds value, so the length is justified.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description enumerates key return fields (release date, confirmed status, cancellation notice, contact, links), making it easy for the agent to understand what the tool provides. Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the description is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema only specifies `uri` as a required string with no description or example. The description compensates by explaining that `uri` is the release path and gives an example ('/releases/consumerpriceinflationjuly2026'), adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Full detail for one release-calendar entry by its `uri`', specifying the verb 'get' and the resource 'release-calendar entry'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool `list_releases` by emphasizing it returns a single detailed entry rather than a list.

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 explains the `uri` parameter is obtained from `list_releases`, providing context for when to use this tool. It implicitly tells when to use (after listing) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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