get_static_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does reveal that the table content is returned in HTML format, which is useful. However, it does not describe other details, error behavior, or any constraints, leaving the agent with limited information beyond a basic 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that gets straight to the point. It includes the key detail (HTML format) without any extraneous wording.

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?

As a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description partially explains the return value by mentioning HTML content but leaves 'details' vague. It could benefit from clarifying what other fields are returned or how to identify the correct domain/ID, but the schema covers the latter.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Static table ID' and 'BPS domain code'). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specifies the action (retrieve details) and the exact resource (a single BPS static table), and clarifies that the response includes HTML content. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_static_tables and get_dynamic_data.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar getter tools such as get_csa_table or get_simdasi_table. The description implies usage through 'single static table' but does not mention any prerequisites or alternatives.

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