get_param_values

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the result is a JSON string containing the parameter name and a value list, or an error message. It says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, or whether values are static or dataset-dependent, which leaves real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and short, but the docstring-style 'Args:'/'Returns:' scaffolding adds bulk, and the Returns paragraph largely restates what the existing output schema already defines. It is serviceable but not tight.

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 lookup with an output schema already present, the definition covers the input nesting, the return shape, and the error case. Only workflow context and any caveat about value coverage are missing.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the non-obvious nested shape: the parameter argument is a dictionary with a single key 'param' whose value is the parameter name. That is the one thing the schema alone would not make obvious without careful reading.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get all possible values of a query parameter by its name.' That is clearly distinct from the sibling get_db_record_count (counting rows) and get_full_dataset (bulk data retrieval), though it does not name those siblings 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 call this versus alternatives, no mention of the typical workflow (discovering valid filter values before querying a dataset), and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the purpose sentence.

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