stickers_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds a useful detail about the 'description' field being raw user-authored data and that the human-readable response fences it, but otherwise does not provide rich behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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 extremely concise with clear sections: Purpose, When to use, Returns. Every sentence adds value, no padding or repetition.

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 public get tool with strong annotations, an output schema, and one parameter, the description covers purpose, usage context, and return fields. It lacks error/edge-case details but these are not necessary at this complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter sticker_id has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no significant parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Public lookup of a single sticker by ID'. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'no guild context', which separates it from stickers_get_guild_sticker and other sticker 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?

Includes a 'When to use' section specifying to resolve sticker IDs from messages or pack responses. It also implies exclusion of guild stickers via 'no guild context', but does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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