Get alias

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns specific fields, which is useful, but it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the alias does not exist) or any read-only guarantee. This is adequate for a simple getter but leaves some gaps.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and output. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential return values and the selection criterion. It is missing edge-case behavior like not-found handling, but for a simple getter this is acceptable completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides a full description of the 'address' parameter (including an example), so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema contains; it only clarifies that the result corresponds to that single alias.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('a single alias'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (address, display name, redirect targets, timestamps). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_aliases or update_alias.

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 clearly conveys that this tool retrieves a single alias as opposed to listing all aliases, which is the implied usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of list_aliases or mention any exclusions, so it falls 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.