athena_promotion_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a fetch (implying read-only) and specifies the returned contents (certificates, attestations, trust state, etc.). However, it does not mention error behavior, auth requirements, or idempotency explicitly, leaving some behavioral aspects unstated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every clause adds a meaningful detail.

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 has a single parameter and no output schema, so the description's summary of the fetched object's attributes (certificates, attestations, trust state, status, decision digest) helps compensate. The note about historical receipts remaining readable adds useful context. Minor omissions like error handling are acceptable for a simple get operation.

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 description does not explicitly explain the 'run_id' parameter, though it indirectly refers to the PROMRUN resource. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate for parameter semantics, but it adds no additional detail about the parameter's format or purpose.

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 'Fetch one persisted versioned PROMRUN' with a specific list of contained attributes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like athena_promotion_recent or athena_promotion_replay by indicating it retrieves a single persisted object. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'PROMRUN' are specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (to retrieve a specific promotion run by ID) but does not explicitly compare it with alternatives like athena_promotion_evaluate or athena_promotion_recent. No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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