get_notice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It reveals that the notice is 'redacted' and 'cached', which are meaningful behavioral traits (e.g., data may not be live, sensitive fields are redacted). For a read-only GET operation, this is sufficient transparency beyond generic expectations.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that includes the verb, resource, and key qualifiers ('redacted', 'cached', 'decimal DUID'). It wastes no words and is immediately scannable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings, but the strong parameter and behavior hints mitigate that. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists.

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?

The schema provides only a parameter name and type (string), with zero description coverage. The description adds crucial semantics by specifying that the DUID is 'decimal', clarifying the expected format. This meaningfully compensates for the schema's sparse metadata, though it could go further by explaining what a DUID represents or how it relates to other tools.

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 specifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('one redacted cached notice'), with a unique identifier ('decimal DUID'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_notices and list_latest_notices, which cover different retrieval patterns.

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 usage context: use this tool when you have a specific decimal DUID to retrieve a single notice. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear from the wording. There is no exclusion or when-not guidance, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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