get_tool

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Get full details', which implies a read operation but doesn't disclose anything about potential errors, rate limits, required authentication, or the scope of 'full details' beyond what is obvious from the name.

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 concise and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a brief Args section. There is no wasted language or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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?

This is a simple get-by-slug tool with only one parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to elaborate on return values. The given purpose and parameter example suffice for a caller to invoke it correctly. The lack of usage guidance is a minor gap, but not blocking for a straightforward retrieval.

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 schema provides no description for the 'slug' parameter, but the description adds a clear definition ('The tool's unique identifier') and a concrete example ('send-email-via-sendgrid'). With 0% schema coverage, this compensates well for the single parameter.

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 states the verb 'Get', the resource 'tool', and the identifying key 'slug', making the basic purpose clear. The phrase 'full details' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tool_quality and get_tool_metrics, which are more specific. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_tool_quality or get_tool_metrics. The description only defines what the tool does, not the conditions that would recommend it over another sibling.

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