Get Poem

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note on missing-ID handling, error behavior, or visibility of the poem, so it contributes essentially nothing over the structured fields.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and resource with zero filler. Nothing is extraneous and no important element is buried.

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 one-parameter read tool with a full safety annotation set and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It could mention behavior when the ID is not found, but the omission is minor at this level of 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'id' as the Poem ID. The description's 'by ID' merely restates that, adding no format, source, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb (retrieves), resource (poem), source system (pplog), and access key (by ID), so an agent can distinguish it from create-poem and search-poems. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the retrieval-by-ID framing is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies this is the tool to use when you already have a known poem ID rather than a query, which implicitly separates it from search-poems. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, so usage is only inferred.

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