Get OCSF object

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) already establish that this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns the 'complete definition including all fields and metadata,' and clarifies that objects are reusable components. No contradictory information exists.

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 well-structured with a clear opening line, bulleted use cases, and a brief explanatory paragraph. It is not overly verbose, and each section has a purpose. A slightly tighter wording could be achieved, but it remains easily skimmable and informative.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of sibling tools for context, the description covers the essential aspects. It clearly states what the tool returns (complete definition, fields, metadata), which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. It does not go into deep detail, but that is acceptable for a reference lookup tool.

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 schema already provides clear descriptions and examples for both parameters (name and version). The description adds some context about how the parameters are used (e.g., mapping source data) but does not substantially enhance the parameter semantics beyond the schema's baseline.

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 clear, specific purpose: 'Get the complete definition of an OCSF object type including all fields and metadata.' It uses a strong verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('OCSF object type'). It also distinguishes from siblings like ocsf_get_class by focusing on object definitions versus class-level structures.

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?

Provides explicit use cases (understanding nested structures, field mapping, TQL construction) that clarify when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'when not to use this,' but the context of reusable objects within classes implies a clear differentiation from class-level tools.

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