get_repository

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content context (name, type, URLs, address count, source count) in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about lookup failure behavior or handle resolution.

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?

One efficient, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb comes first and the returned fields follow compactly. The '(if available)' hedge is the only slightly loose element.

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-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the important unknown (what comes back). It would be complete at 5 with a note on missing-handle behavior, but nothing essential is absent.

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% and the single 'repository' parameter is fully documented in the schema with a handle/gramps_id example. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Get a repository') and it enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. However, it does not distinguish itself from generic siblings such as get_object or query_records, which could also fetch a repository.

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?

No statement of when to use this vs get_object, query_records, or query_objects. The agent is left to infer that this is the repository-specific fetch, with no exclusions or prerequisites given.

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