get_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns 'ALL fields' and lists examples, implying a read-only fetch. However, it does not explicitly mention idempotency, permissions, or lack of side effects, which reduces transparency.

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 concise: two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary action and scope, the second provides usage context, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (fetch by ID) and the complete schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it fetches, by what identifier, and why to use it. It is missing explicit mention of error handling or return format, but for a single-record lookup, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the schema already describes both parameters (entityType with enum, id as string). The description adds context about 'bndy UUID' and the full record nature, but does not add significant semantic depth beyond the schema.

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 it fetches a full record of venue, artist, or event by bndy UUID, listing specific fields and distinguishing it as a pre-edit inspection tool, which differentiates from sibling tools like get_by_external_id.

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 provides explicit guidance to use 'before edit_* to inspect current state for merge decisions', indicating when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for the agent.

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