get_pie

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

The description discloses that HTTP 404 is raised if the pie does not exist and specifies a rate limit of 1 request per 5 seconds. This adds behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which already indicates a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists return fields concisely. It is about 70 words with no redundancy, though slightly longer than minimal.

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 input (1 parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned (pie settings and instrument breakdown), error behavior, and rate limits. It is complete for the tool's 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides for the single parameter 'pie_id'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fetch one pie's full definition and per-instrument breakdown' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_pies' which lists all pies.

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 indicates the tool retrieves a single pie's details and includes a rate limit, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., 'list_pies' or 'get_portfolio'). Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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