growsurf_get_participant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail about which campaign is targeted (passed campaignId vs GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID). It does not describe error handling or response format, but with output schema present and annotations robust, the extra context earns a 4.

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 with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, the alternative is embedded, and the campaign targeting nuance is concise. Every word earns its place.

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 the output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is complete for correct invocation. It covers how to identify the participant, how to handle the campaign, and points to the sibling for ID lookup. Minor omissions like behavior when both ID and email are provided are not critical, so a 4 is justified.

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 only 33% (campaignId described, participantId and participantEmail undescribed). The description adds minimal semantics: it states both identifiers are accepted and for the same purpose. It does not clarify formats, precedence rules if both are given, or distinguish between the two beyond names. It partially compensates for the low coverage but not thoroughly, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Fetch a single participant') and the resource (participant) with two accepted identifiers (ID or email). It distinguishes from list/analytics/logs siblings by focusing on a single record, and explicitly names the sibling for lookup. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use growsurf_list_participants to find a participant ID when needed, which is a clear alternative for a common precondition. It also explains the campaignId targeting rule (explicit vs default). However, it does not state any when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving that to the agent's inference. Slight gap, but the primary guidance is strong.

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