siigo_get_purchase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, error handling for invalid IDs, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 tool's moderate complexity (retrieving a specific entity by ID), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (parameter 'id' is documented as 'Purchase ID'), so the description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to guidelines, this results in a baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a specific purchase by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'siigo_get_purchases' (plural) which likely retrieves multiple purchases, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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 like 'siigo_get_purchases' for listing multiple purchases or 'siigo_update_purchase' for modifications. The description assumes context but offers no explicit usage rules or prerequisites.

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