Get tip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set, which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about not-found/error behavior or channel resolution outcomes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and scope first and no filler; every clause earns its place by conveying the retrieval scope and returned fields.

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 simple read-only lookup with two fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the definition plus schema is nearly complete, and listing return fields compensates for the absent output schema. The remaining gap is the lack of when-to-use routing among the many tips_* siblings.

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 both tipId (24-char hex) and channel (with its SE_CHANNEL_ID default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or default information beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (one tip) with the scoping constraint 'by id', and even enumerates the returned fields (tipper, amount, currency, message, status). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names a sibling like tips_list to draw the contrast explicitly.

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 over tips_list, tips_top, or tips_leaderboard, and no mention of prerequisites such as a valid tip id or required permissions. 'By id' implies it is a single-record lookup, but the agent must infer that.

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