Get Study

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by mentioning the optimistic concurrency version, which is relevant for subsequent update operations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the concurrency-version detail is packed in without bloat.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read operation with strong annotations and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return structure. It is mostly complete, though explicitly connecting study_id to the study selection would remove the only remaining ambiguity.

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 does not explain study_id beyond the generic 'a study.' While the parameter name and title are fairly self-evident, the description adds no detail about the ID format, requiredness, or how the concurrency version relates to it.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('study'), and adds that the tool returns the study's optimistic concurrency version. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_studies (which lists) and get_study_run (which reads a run, not a study).

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 'Read a study' framing makes it clear this is for retrieving a single study by ID, implicitly separating it from list_studies and study-run-level tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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