Get tag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only.' sentence merely restates that. The 'Returns:' line duplicates information already carried by the output schema. Nothing is added about permissions, behavior on a missing or deleted tag_id, or any rate/size considerations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the whole definition is short. The Args/Returns block is easy to scan, but 'Read-only.' and the Returns line restate structured fields, so a couple of sentences do not fully earn their place.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the definition covers purpose, parameter provenance, and return shape, which is close to sufficient. The only real gap is error behavior for an invalid or deleted tag_id, which is minor at this complexity.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does useful work: it identifies tag_id as a UUID and tells the agent where to obtain one (list_tags). That provenance hint is genuinely beyond the bare 'Tag Id' schema title, though format constraints or validation behavior are not described.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get details for a specific tag') and follows with 'inspect a tag's properties', which is unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_tags by citing list_tags as the source of the identifier, but it does not explicitly contrast with update_tag or delete_tag.

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?

'Use this to inspect a tag's properties' gives an implied use case, and '(from list_tags)' points the agent at the discovery step that precedes this call. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives for fetching many tags at once, and no prerequisite or error conditions stated.

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