get_coach_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It contains no information about authentication needs, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what if ID not found), or safety (e.g., read-only). The description is too minimal to inform the agent about potential side effects or restrictions.

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 sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the key information. However, it could have included a bit more context (e.g., mentioning optional fields) without becoming verbose. It earns high marks for conciseness but loses a point for being slightly underspecified.

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 that the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what a coach entity includes, how the include parameter works, or the structure of the response. The current description 'Get a single coach by ID' is too sparse to fully guide an agent, especially with many sibling tools offering related functionality.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already explains each parameter's meaning. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not detract but also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'single coach', and the identifier 'by ID'. It unambiguously tells the agent what the tool does, and the name itself is descriptive. Among siblings like get_all_coaches and search_coaches_by_name, this tool's purpose is distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_all_coaches or search_coaches_by_name. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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