Get EAV Attribute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable guidance about interpreting the result: 'static backend_type → query base entity table, not EAV value tables,' which clarifies a behavioral nuance beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core lookup purpose and the key parameters. The query-guidance note is appended neatly without bloat, and every sentence earns its place.

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 a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds the crucial query guidance for interpreting backend_type, which is essential for effective use. The only minor gap is that the description implies both parameters are needed while the schema marks entity_type_code optional, but that's a schema concern more than a description gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the alias relationship between entity_type_code and entity_type, and it highlights the two most important parameters (entity_type_code and attribute_code) in the purpose statement, giving the agent better focus.

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 a specific verb ('looks up'), a clear resource ('EAV attribute'), and the two key discriminators (entity_type_code and attribute_code). It immediately distinguishes from siblings like get_product_attributes by focusing on a single attribute lookup with backend_type guidance.

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 description implies the primary use case—looking up a specific EAV attribute's metadata—but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternative tools like get_product_attributes or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative routing, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the naming and description.

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