reach_getProfileSegmentDetailsV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. It clearly states what the tool returns (segment definition/conditions) and explicitly states that it does NOT return contacts, pointing to the appropriate endpoint. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly mention permissions, idempotency, or other side effects, which is acceptable for a simple getter but not fully comprehensive.

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 two short sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and return value, while the second provides a valuable alternative for a different use case. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simple getter with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (segment conditions), and the pointer to the contacts endpoint covers the main alternate need. No further behavioral context is necessary.

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 100% with both parameters described as 'Profile uuid parameter' and 'Segment uuid parameter'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the relationship between the parameters or provide format/context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameters adequately.

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 function: 'Get a single segment of a profile, including the conditions that define it.' This uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('single segment of a profile'), and specifies the return content ('conditions that define it'). The second sentence distinguishes it from the segment contacts endpoint, further clarifying its unique purpose.

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 says when NOT to use this tool: 'To retrieve the contacts currently matching those conditions, use the segment contacts endpoint instead.' It provides an alternative for a common use case. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools like reach_listProfileSegmentsV1 or reach_getSegmentDetailsV1, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over similar read operations.

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