get_sendig_variable_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: domain auto-detection is only attempted, the latest version is used when unspecified, and codelist retrieval is conditional on controlled terminology. It does not mention error behavior, but for a read-only metadata lookup the disclosed behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 a clean, scannable docstring with Args, Returns, and Example sections. Every section contributes useful information, and the purpose statement is front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it documents all parameters, gives two examples, and describes the return shape. It stops short of perfect completeness by not covering failure modes, ambiguous auto-detection, or the exact purpose of headers_, but it is still sufficient for most calls.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains every parameter: variable with concrete examples, domain with auto-detection semantics, sendig_version with a default, include_codelist with conditional behavior, and headers_ as optional custom headers. This goes well beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 starts with 'Get detailed metadata for a SEND variable,' which names a specific verb and resource, and adds the optional codelist qualifier. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sdtm_variable_details and get_adam_variable_details, which target different domains or data types.

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 gives useful argument-level usage context, such as domain auto-detection and defaulting to the latest SENDIG version, and the examples show valid call patterns. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_sdtm_variable_details or when not to use it, so the usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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