explain_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the shape of the return content (placement, spelling, related items), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, or whether the answer set is bounded to ERN 3.8.2 only.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then packs the return summary into a tight parenthetical. Zero waste.

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 one-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return content adequately. It falls short only on when to prefer it over the list_* and element_sequence siblings, which matters in a family of nine related tools.

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% and the single param already documents itself with concrete examples (ReleaseDetailsByTerritory, ICPN, FileURL). The description adds only the minor clarification that the name may also be a 'concept', not just an element or attribute. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('ERN 3.8.2 element, attribute, or concept'), and the parenthetical clarifies what an explanation contains (where it goes, spelling, related items). This distinguishes it implicitly from list_elements, which presumably only enumerates names, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you need details about a known element rather than a list. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no routing to siblings like list_elements or element_sequence.

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