get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the rich returned payload ('links and metrics') and the exact error shape ({"error": "unknown id", "id": ...}) for missing ids, but does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or read-only nature explicitly.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, error behavior, and routing, followed by a short example. Front-loaded with the core capability and zero filler.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description supplies purpose, error semantics, sibling routing, and an example. It stops short of defining auth or rate-limit expectations, but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 0% and the sole parameter `id` is undocumented in the schema; the description compensates by specifying the id format and giving a concrete example ('jais-30b'). Baseline for a one-param tool is 4, and the example lifts it, though no further constraints (length, allowed charset) are given.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (one full Arabic AI Atlas entry) with scope ('by its id'). Names a concrete id example ('jais-30b'), making the tool's domain unambiguous against the sibling tools search and recommend.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to `search` to find ids, which is a clear alternative-tool pointer. It lacks an explicit when-not statement (e.g., 'do not use for listing or bulk retrieval'), but the conditional routing is strong.

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