get_observation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'Get' (implying read-only) and 'dimension filters' but doesn't disclose permissions, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what 'observations' contain. For a data retrieval tool with 4 parameters and nested objects, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more specific (e.g., mentioning it returns data points rather than just 'observations').

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 data retrieval tool with 4 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'observations' are (e.g., data points, records), how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without trial and error.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds marginal value by implying 'dimensions' are used for filtering, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('specific data observations') with additional context about 'dimension filters'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_dataset' (metadata) and 'list_datasets' (listing) by focusing on actual data retrieval with filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_latest_data' which might also retrieve 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_latest_data' or 'search_datasets'. It mentions 'dimension filters' but doesn't explain when filtering is needed versus other retrieval methods. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context is provided.

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