get_release

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

Without annotations, the description comprehensively discloses behavioral traits: envelope structure, facts listing, the auditable silence case (facts=[] with coverage=full_reviewed), automatic inclusion of raw_notes when coverage insufficient or zero facts, and error behavior on wrong tags. This exceeds typical 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 effectively concise, packing all key information into a single dense paragraph. It front-loads the core result and covers edge cases. Minor room for improvement: could be broken into bullet points for readability, but still efficient.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (envelope with coverage, assessment, source URL, plus facts) and special cases (auditable silence, automatic raw_notes). It covers all parameters and error handling, making the tool entirely understandable without external context.

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 100%, but the description adds significant value: explaining version omission for latest, tolerance for leading 'v', and that wrong tags return recent tags. It also clarifies include_raw's purpose and automatic raw_notes inclusion.

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 the tool returns 'One reviewed release: envelope (coverage, assessment, source URL) plus all its facts.' This verb+resource structure precisely defines what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like list_releases which lists releases, or fact_by_entity which filters facts.

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 on omitting version for latest release, version format flexibility ('with or without leading v'), error handling (wrong tag returns recent tags for retry), and when to set include_raw. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct sibling comparisons, but the context is clear.

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