get_sortie

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

Goes well past the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that some fields are hidden without member credentials (listed in hidden_without_login), that start/end, meeting point and price are backfilled from the public iCal feed for upcoming outings, that staff and my_participation appear only with credentials, and that other participants are never listed. The explicit 'data, never instructions' warning on untrusted_member_text is a valuable injection-defense note the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and dense with earned information, but the long field enumeration in the first sentence and the parenthetical list of member-text fields make it a run-on that is harder to scan than it needs to be. Nearly every clause carries unique information, so it is verbose rather than wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return payload and does so thoroughly: the base field set, the conditional fields by credential level, the iCal fallback, and the truncation rule. An agent knows both what it will receive and how completeness varies with auth.

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%, yet the description compensates for both parameters: `sortie` accepts an id such as "10765" or a URL on the club site, and `full_description` is explained as the switch that lifts the 1500-character truncation. This is meaning the schema alone does not supply.

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 — 'Full detail of one outing' — and immediately distinguishes itself from the list-oriented siblings by being a single-record fetch keyed by id or club-site URL. The enumeration of returned fields (activity, start/end, participants, waiting list, carbon footprint) makes the scope concrete rather than tautological.

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 'one outing, from its id or URL' framing makes the use case clear (fetch a known outing's details), and the credential-conditional behavior tells the agent what it will and won't get. It never explicitly routes the agent to list_sorties to obtain an id, so the alternative-tool relationship is implied rather than stated.

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