get_hold

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context such as identifier alternatives and time-filter options, but it does not disclose return shape, not-found behavior, or any rate-limit/error characteristics. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences with the most important facts front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of schema titles.

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-read tool, the description covers the core invocation: endpoint, identifiers, optional filters, when to call it, and precedence. The main gaps are the absence of any return/error expectations and the implicit at-least-one-identifier requirement.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry the semantic load. It does: username, alias, and holdShortId are identified as lookup keys, time_min/time_max are called optional and given units in milliseconds, and 'Alias/name first' clarifies precedence. It does not state that at least one identifier is required, so it is not perfect.

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 and resource: 'Fetch one Hold (scheduling page) by username, alias, or holdShortId.' It clearly differentiates from get_holds by emphasizing a single Hold, and the parenthetical defines the domain term.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Call after get_holds when inspecting availability slots.' This names the natural sibling workflow and intended context. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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