Get collection detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool returns a collection's detail and mentions the input parameter. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, side-effect-free, or how errors (e.g., collection not found) are handled, leaving significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 that front-load the purpose and immediately clarify the relationship to sibling tools. Every sentence carries meaningful information without waste, making it highly efficient.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context by listing the returned fields and pointing to sibling tools for complementary actions. It does not cover potential error cases, but given the simplicity, this is a minor omission; overall the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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%, with collectionId described as 'The collection's id (from list_collections).' The description reinforces this by saying 'by collectionId' and referencing list_collections for finding the id, adding a small amount of context beyond the schema but not significantly enhancing parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get one collection's detail (name, description, icon, book count) by collectionId.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing get_collection_books and list_collections, making the tool's unique role clear.

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 provides useful usage context, noting this tool is a 'Companion to get_collection_books' and suggesting to 'use list_collections to find the id.' This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool relative to its siblings, though it does not explicitly exclude any use cases or specify when not to use it.

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