nominations_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not that it is a read-only operation, not that the 'include' and 'fields_*' parameters expand related resources, not any auth or 404 behavior. The description adds zero behavioral context beyond the URL path.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness: the same path is printed twice with no useful content. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing substantive to front-load.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It never explains the sparse-fieldset/include semantics a caller must understand to use the parameters correctly, nor what the response contains.

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%, so the schema itself documents id, include, the fields_* sparse-fieldset parameters, and the limit_* paging parameters in detail. Baseline 3 applies because the description contributes no additional parameter meaning on top of the schema.

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 is a verbatim restatement of the tool name/path ("GET /v1/nominations/{id}"), duplicated parenthetically. It implies fetching a single nomination by id, but it is essentially a tautology and never explains what a nomination resource actually is or what the agent gets back.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling nominations_get_collection or the update/delete instance tools. The agent is given nothing to distinguish this retrieval from any other GET in a set of hundreds of sibling tools.

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