cfpb_complaint_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by listing the fields returned and noting the conditional 'narrative (if consented)', which is a non-obvious data availability nuance. It does not detail error cases or rate limits, but the read-only nature and return contents are well communicated.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place: purpose, parameter, and typical return fields. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides a strong overview of expected return contents (product, issue, company, narrative, response, dates). It does not mention things like error conditions or response format details, but for a simple 1-parameter detail tool, the guidance is sufficient. The 'etc.' is acceptable given the enumerated fields.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter already defined as 'CFPB Complaint ID number'. The description simply reiterates 'Complaint ID' without adding format, example, or source details. The schema carries the semantic load; the description adds minimal value beyond confirming the parameter's role.

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's function: 'Get full details for a specific complaint by its Complaint ID.' It names the specific resource (complaint) and operation (get details), and distinguishes itself from sibling search/aggregation tools by focusing on a single known ID. The mention of returned fields reinforces its purpose.

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 use case is implied: use when you have a specific Complaint ID and need full details. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools like cfpb_search_complaints or cfpb_complaint_aggregations. The description does not mention alternatives or a prerequisite of searching first.

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