get_master

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Its main contribution is disclosing the return payload per master type (Ledger: opening balance, GSTIN, PAN; Stock item: GST rate, HSN), which is real value given no output schema exists. However, it says nothing about missing-record behavior, read-only safety, or cost, and the 'Others: parent etc.' clip is vague.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently enumerated by type in a compact telegraphic style. It's dense but not padded; the only weak spot is the trailing 'Others: parent etc.', which trails off rather than informing.

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?

Because no output schema exists, this description is the sole source of return-value information and it does cover two of the seven types in detail. But four master types are collapsed into 'Others: parent etc.', leaving the most unusual enum values largely unexplained.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented 'name' and 'type' semantics. It partially does by mapping the 'type' enum values to their resulting field sets, but says nothing about how 'name' is matched (exact vs fuzzy) or what 'Others: parent etc.' means for group/stock_group/unit/godown/cost_centre.

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 states it returns 'full details of one master', which distinguishes it from the sibling list_masters by the singular scope. The breakdown of fields by master type (ledger, stock item) reinforces what 'details' means. It stops short of naming the sibling it replaces, which is why it isn't a 5.

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 explicit 'use this when...' statement or named alternative; the reader infers from 'one master' that this is the single-record counterpart to list_masters. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no guidance on when get_master is preferred over list_masters with a filter.

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