get_name

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld, so the description adds substantial value beyond them: the creatorOf vs referencedIn distinction, the warning that biography is secondary/second-hand data, and that maybe_same_count>0 signals a suspected duplicate entity. The caching/refresh behavior is repeated from the schema rather than new, keeping this just below the top score.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by compact, non-redundant interpretation notes. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the multi-clause sentence about creatorOf/referencedIn is dense enough to slow a quick scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does explain key returned fields (collections roles, maybe_same_count) and data provenance. It doesn't describe the summary-vs-full result difference or pagination, but the schema's detail enum covers the former, leaving only minor gaps.

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 name_id, detail, and refresh are already documented in the schema with formats and defaults. The description adds emphasis ('Record the ark, not the numeric id') but no new syntax or constraint beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Read one SNAC name record: who or what it is, and the collections linked to it.' The singular 'one ... record' plus the mention of linked collections cleanly separates it from search_names and get_collection without needing to name them.

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?

It gives real operational guidance: 'refresh a cached empty result before concluding something is absent' and 'Record the ark, not the numeric id.' What's missing is explicit routing advice among siblings (e.g. use search_names first to obtain the id, or get_collection for the collection side), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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