get_sighting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions what is included (full description, source link) but does not disclose side effects, error handling, or permissions. This is adequate but not detailed.

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, concise sentence of 18 words, front-loading the core action and providing an example. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key inclusions (full description, source link). The sibling list provides context. Minor omission: does not explain return format or error states.

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 input schema already describes the 'id' parameter as 'record id, e.g. 'pursue-042''. The description adds the same example without providing new semantic meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, 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 verb 'get', the resource 'full record for one UAP file', and specifies the identifier format with an example. It distinguishes itself from siblings like full_text_search by being a direct retrieval by ID.

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 implies usage when you have a specific ID and need the full record, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives. Sibling tools are listed separately but not contrasted.

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