Get a writer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that the response includes PRO/IPI identifiers and publisher link, providing behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every part serves a purpose: action, resource, scope, and included 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 one-parameter read tool with annotations, the description is complete. It identifies the resource, the parameter usage, and key fields in the response. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently hints at the return content.

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 description mentions 'by id' but does not explain the writer_id parameter's format, constraints, or purpose beyond what the schema already defines (integer, exclusiveMinimum 0). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Retrieve one writer by id'), the specific resource ('writer'), and the included fields ('PRO/IPI identifiers and publisher link'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_writers and delete_writer.

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 does not explicitly state when or when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. Context implicates single-record retrieval, but no exclusions or comparative guidance are given.

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