reach_getSegmentDetailsV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly discloses the deprecated status, the fallback to default profile, and the inability to read segments of other profiles. This provides meaningful behavioral context, though it does not describe response format or error behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The background sentence about segments is useful context, and the deprecation notice with alternative is essential. No wasted words, though the initial sentence is slightly redundant with the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description does not detail what 'details' are returned, but for a simple get-by-ID operation this is acceptable. The deprecation warning and explicit alternative make it complete enough for an agent to decide whether to use this tool or a sibling.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with a description of 'segmentUuid' as 'Segment uuid parameter'. The description adds that segments are identified by UUID and are used to organize/group contacts, but this is minor and does not substantially enhance the parameter understanding.

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 'Get details of a specific segment' and further explains it retrieves information about a single segment by UUID. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the deprecation and pointing to the profile-scoped alternative.

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 states when not to use this tool (deprecated, cannot target a profile, falls back to default profile) and provides a specific alternative endpoint: 'GET /api/reach/v1/profiles/{profileUuid}/segmentation/segments/{segmentUuid}'. This gives clear guidance versus sibling tools like reach_getProfileSegmentDetailsV1.

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