get_crew_setup

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 covered, but the description adds nothing else: no note on what happens when a setup_id is unknown, no mention of the unusual idempotency_key on a read operation, and no return-shape guidance despite there being no output schema.

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?

It is short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency; there is no front-loaded statement of purpose, scope, or output. Every sentence that would earn its place is absent.

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?

With 2 parameters at 0% schema coverage, an undocumented nested object structure, and no output schema, the description should carry the full explanatory burden but supplies none of it. An agent could not confidently construct a call or interpret the result from this definition.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description explains none of the parameters. The nested arguments object contains unexplained basis and intent objects, and the optional idempotency_key is entirely unaddressed (particularly notable on a read-only tool), leaving all parameter meaning undisclosed.

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?

"get crew setup" merely restates the tool name in lowercase; it adds no verb specificity beyond "get" and no notion of what a crew setup is or which fields are returned. It does not distinguish this from the sibling list_crew_setups, so an agent cannot tell retrieval-by-id from enumeration from the description alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling list_crew_setups as the alternative for enumeration, and no stated prerequisite that a setup_id must already be known. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the name and the required parameter.

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