get_tech_trust_run_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It declares the tool is read-only and returns a JSON object, and mentions a specific possible value for security headers. However, it does not cover error scenarios, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens on invalid inputs.

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 concise, with six sentences each serving a distinct purpose: core function, comparison to sibling, usage guidance, parameter origin, a behavioral detail, and final attributes. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, usage, parameter requirements, a behavioral quirk, and return type. Missing error handling and full output structure, but adequate for a read-only tool with simple parameters.

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% for both parameters, with descriptions in the schema indicating how to obtain each ID. The description reiterates that runId comes from get_tech_trust_history, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool retrieves full competitor-by-competitor Tech & Trust data for a specific historical run, using the verb 'get' and specifying the resource. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_tech_trust_dashboard by noting it returns the same structure but for a past point in time.

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 when to use the tool ('investigate what changed between runs or to audit a specific monitoring cycle') and how to obtain the required runId from get_tech_trust_history. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the comparison with get_tech_trust_dashboard implies the context.

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