Get Newsletter

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming it's a safe read operation. However, it does not add any additional behavioral detail beyond what annotations already convey, such as what specific fields are returned or any edge cases.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is immediately clear and easy to parse.

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 the simplicity of the tool (1 required param, read-only, no output schema), the description provides the minimum necessary information. It could be improved by hinting at the return format or mentioning that it complements related tools like list_newsletters.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (id) with a description ('The unique identifier of the newsletter'). The tool description does not add any further semantic meaning, so it meets the baseline expected for full schema coverage.

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 ('Get details'), the resource ('newsletter'), and includes a specific context ('WhatsApp Channel'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like neuron_list_newsletters (listing) and neuron_create_newsletter (creation).

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or direct users to list_newsletters for fetching multiple newsletters. The agent must infer usage from the description.

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