Garoon Get Bulletin Topic Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safe-read behavior. The description adds useful context about what the response will include (body, attachments, public period, metadata), but it does not disclose behaviors such as error conditions or behavior for invalid topic IDs. This is acceptable but not rich, given the read-only annotations.

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 well-structured sentence that states the action and key detail inclusions with no redundant wording. It earns its place by differentiating the tool and informing the agent of what to expect.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read-only detail endpoint with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the topic, the target system, and the expected content categories; the output schema handles the rest of the return shape.

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%: the lone parameter topicId has a clear description and pattern in the schema. The tool description only mentions "specific topic" and does not add meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description starts with "Get full details of a specific bulletin board topic from Garoon"—a specific verb, resource, and scope that clearly identifies the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like get-bulletin-topics by emphasizing "specific" and enumerating the detail fields (body, attachments, public period, metadata).

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 implies this is the tool to call when a single topic's full detail is needed, especially in contrast to the list sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer get-bulletin-topics or any exclusion criteria, so guidance is only implicit rather than clearly articulated.

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