doj_press_release_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing the fields returned (complete body, component, topic, date, URL), which helps the agent know what to expect. No contradictions or missing critical behaviors for such a straightforward read operation.

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 sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second lists return fields. No filler, no redundancy. The most important information (verb + resource) is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, read-only, no output schema. The description specifies the input source (UUID from search results) and the output content (body, component, topic, date, URL), which is sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly without ambiguity.

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%: the parameter 'uuid' is described as 'UUID of the press release (from search results)'. The tool description repeats this with 'by UUID' but adds little beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic load.

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 the full text of a specific DOJ press release by UUID. It specifies the resource (DOJ press release) and the action (getting full text), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like doj_press_releases (which likely handles search/list) by focusing on a specific release's detail.

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 and parameter schema provide clear context: the tool requires a UUID and explicitly notes '(from search results)' in the parameter description, implying it should be used after a search. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a simple detail-fetch tool.

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