get_achievement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't reveal whether the entry must belong to the authenticated user, what happens if the ID doesn't exist (error vs empty result), or any permissions needed. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 efficient sentence in Japanese, with zero wasted words. It front-loads the purpose. While brief, it's appropriately minimal for such a simple single-parameter retrieval tool.

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 get-by-ID tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, given zero annotations, it doesn't address expected error behavior on missing IDs, authorization scope, or returning null vs error. Sibling tools exist (list_achievements) whose relationship isn't clarified. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps for a tool in a large sibling set.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter as an entry ID (UUID). The description's '(IDで指定)' parenthetical merely restates what the schema says, adding no value beyond it. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema does full documentation work.

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 '実績を取得 (IDで指定)' states 'Get achievement (specified by ID)' in Japanese, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like get_hobby, get_skill, get_project which all follow the identical get-by-ID pattern. The purpose is clear but there's no differentiation from the many parallel 'get_X' siblings, so it doesn't fully help an agent select among the get_* family.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include list_achievements and create_achievement, but the description never explains this is the single-record retrieval counterpart to list_achievements. No context or exclusions are given for when an agent should pick this tool over its siblings.

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