Get Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful trait that the feature is 'typically a dependent one', warning the agent that results are scoped by a parent selection, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or empty-result 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?

Two tight sentences, no filler, with the core concept and the downstream usage front-loaded. Slightly terse given it omits the query parameter entirely, but every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. It supplies the one thing structured fields lack — the dependent/hierarchical nature of the options — leaving only minor gaps around result sizing and the query filter.

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 schema itself carries rich examples (feature_id 590 = phone model, parent_option_id 12900 = Chișinău mun.). The description's hierarchy framing reinforces the parent/child relationship behind parent_option_id but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 names the resource ('options of one feature') and conveys the retrieval action, with concrete examples (cities of a region, sectors of a city, models of a brand) that make the concept unambiguous. It separates itself reasonably from flat-search siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 one actionable usage directive — 'Use the returned ids in search filters' — which implies this is a lookup/enumeration step feeding other tools. However, it never states when to prefer get_options over get_filters or search, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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