get_engagement

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets' an engagement and returns JSON. It does not mention idempotency, error handling (e.g., what happens if ID doesn't exist), permissions, or side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a read operation.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one line for parameters. No redundant information. Every word 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?

Given the output schema exists, return structure explanation is unnecessary. However, the description fails to mention error behavior (e.g., returns null or throws on missing ID) or any other completion context. It's minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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?

The description adds a constraint not present in the schema: 'engagement_id (must be > 0)'. The schema only specifies integer type with no minimum, so this is valuable. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of the ID (e.g., unique identifier), which is somewhat implicit.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get a single engagement by ID.' It specifies both the verb ('Get') and the resource ('engagement'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_engagements' by indicating it retrieves a single item.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_engagements'). While 'by ID' implies a specific use case, it lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions, making it hard for an agent to decide without prior knowledge.

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