boond_agencies_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Get an agency by ID' communicates read-only intent, which is useful, but it omits any detail about not-found behavior, authorization requirements, response shape, or potential side effects.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words or repetition. The key scoping detail ('by ID') is present and front-loaded.

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 simple read-by-ID tool with one required parameter and no output schema, this description is largely complete for invocation. It lacks error-handling and return-value details, but those are less critical for a straightforward fetch operation.

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%, but the description explicitly maps 'by ID' to the single required id parameter, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. For a one-parameter get tool, this is sufficient compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('an agency') and uniquely identifies the operation by ID, making it clear this is a single-record fetch rather than a search or mutation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_agencies_search, boond_agencies_create, and boond_agencies_update.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It is only implicitly clear that it should be used when you already have an agency ID, but no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or contextual triggers are provided.

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