get_addon_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the three identifier types accepted (ID, name, attachment name) and their contextual requirements, plus the access requirements. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or what 'comprehensive information' actually includes in the response.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter context. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter context more seamlessly.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining what the tool does and parameter usage. However, it lacks details about the response format (what 'comprehensive information' includes), which would be important given the absence of output schema. The parameter coverage is good, but behavioral context could be more complete.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by summarizing the three identifier types and their usage contexts, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's already in the detailed schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get comprehensive information') and resource ('about a Heroku add-on'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying three specific use cases (view add-on details, check plan details and state, view billing information). This is more specific than generic 'get' operations like get_app_info.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need to: 1) View add-on details, 2) Check plan details and state, 3) View billing information'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (like list_addons for listing vs. get_addon_info for detailed info).

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