Get Other Size

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not state side effects, error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description's brevity leaves behavioral expectations largely unspecified.

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 single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no extraneous information. It is appropriately succinct, though it may be too terse to fully convey intent.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain return values and usage context. It fails to describe what the response contains, what 'Other size' means, or what the user input expects. This is minimal coverage for a tool with two required parameters and no structured output details.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It provides general context ('for a neg risk event and user') but does not explicitly map parameters to concepts. The schema covers types and constraints, and parameter names are self-explanatory, giving partial compensation.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('Other' size for a neg risk event and user). It differentiates the tool from siblings by specifying a unique data point ('Other' size) and context (neg risk event). However, the term 'Other size' is ambiguous without additional domain context.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusionary criteria. While the purpose narrows its use, there is no explicit mention of alternative tools or conditions for selection.

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