get-schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'Retrieve ... from the Schema API' makes the read-only nature reasonably clear, and the source endpoint is named. However, it says nothing about behavior on an invalid/unknown collection, permissions required, or whether the result is cached or expensive, so disclosure is only partial.

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 purpose, then return contents, then the when-to-use cue, then a parameter note – good ordering with no filler. The trailing Parameters section is somewhat redundant with the input schema, though it is defensible given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema already defining the return shape, the description supplies purpose, timing guidance, and the sole parameter's meaning, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is failure/edge-case behavior for an unknown collection.

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% – the schema property is a bare 'Collection' string with no descriptions. The description partially compensates by identifying it as 'Solr collection name', but adds no format, alias, or naming-convention guidance beyond that label, so it leaves the parameter only minimally clarified.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Retrieve schema information for a Solr collection') and it enumerates what the response contains (field definitions, field types, copy-field relationships). No sibling in the list (list-collections, search, sql-select, semantic-select, vector-select, get-default-text-vectorizer) returns schema data, so the agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it: 'Call this before search when you need valid field names or types,' which names a sibling and a triggering condition. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. that a previously cached schema or a different collection-level tool is preferable), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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