Get Iceberg Java member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds exact-match selection semantics but no further behavioral context such as not-found behavior, version-specific differences, or response characteristics.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs the identifier forms and scoping constraint with zero filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Together with the input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description provides enough for an agent to invoke this exact-lookup tool correctly. It does not explicitly situate itself against sibling tools, but the exactness wording and 'member' resource make the intended use clear.

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 documents member and version, but fully_qualified_name has no description. The phrase 'within an exact Java type' helps clarify that fully_qualified_name is the exact type scope, and 'published label or Javadoc anchor' reinforces the member parameter. A concrete example would have made this stronger.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('one exact member'), and a precise scoping constraint ('within an exact Java type'). It also differentiates this from search or browse by emphasizing exactness and the accepted identifiers ('published label or Javadoc anchor').

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 implies this is the tool for exact single-member lookup when the label or anchor and exact Java type are already known. It does not explicitly name alternatives like iceberg_api_search or iceberg_api_browse, so it falls short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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