get_reference_data

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that write tools accept either localized Id or BaseId and normalize as needed, but does not state that this tool is read-only/safe, describe the return shape, or note caching/pagination 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 dense but efficient sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by entity-selection guidance. The long enumeration is justified by the enum, though the slash-separated entity names are slightly harder to scan.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what entity to choose but leaves the return structure unspecified (e.g., whether it returns an array of IDs with names/BaseIds). Adequate for selection, but not fully complete for a tool whose output is consumed by write operations.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum values are already listed, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by mapping entity names to intended usage contexts (e.g., assessments for task progress, activitystatuses/servicetypes for service writes).

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get reference IDs' plus the categories of reference data covered. It is unmistakably a lookup tool and distinct from the CRUD/search siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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?

Provides explicit entity-selection guidance such as 'Use assessments for task progress' and 'riskstatuses... for risks.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but for a unique lookup tool this mapping is strong usage guidance.

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