get_symptom

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two valuable behavioral traits: the response payload is large (~2,350 characters) and it covers the entire tree rather than a filtered subset. It does not say how lookup failures are reported when the symptom is unknown or how the three identifiers resolve to a single symptom, which leaves a modest gap for a read tool with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and closed with the size-based usage caveat, with no filler. Every clause contributes either scope or a usage constraint.

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 read-only retrieval tool with full schema coverage, the description usefully enumerates the return contents and warns about payload size, which compensates for the absent output schema. Only the identifier-resolution and not-found behavior remain unaddressed, a small residual gap for a three-parameter tool.

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%, with query, symptom_id, and category_id all documented in the schema and none holding enums. The description adds nothing about when to prefer query over symptom_id or whether category_id narrows the lookup, so the schema alone does the work and the baseline 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource (retrieve a single symptom's complete diagnostic tree) and enumerates what that tree contains: clarifying questions, all causes and repair steps, parts, and stop boundaries. It implicitly separates itself from lighter lookup tools by calling this the most complete option, but it never names a sibling such as find_symptom or search_symptoms, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It clearly states the condition that should select this tool: use it only when the whole tree is needed, with the ~2,350-character size framed as the reason not to use it casually. This gives real when/when-not guidance, but the cheaper alternative to use instead is never named, so an agent must guess which sibling to prefer for partial lookups.

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