get_outlet

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Get' which implies a read-only operation and lists included fields, giving response expectations. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., missing ID) or auth requirements, which are minor for a get 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 description is front-loaded with the main purpose in one sentence, followed by an Args block that is one line. No filler or repetition.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter, the description covers what it does, what the argument is, and what the response includes. The sibling tools provide context for when to use this one. No output schema, but the description's mention of fields is sufficient.

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 only has 'outlet_id' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by defining it as 'IMLS outlet ID', which tells the agent what kind of value to supply. This is a meaningful addition beyond the bare schema.

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 action: 'Get the full record for one library branch (outlet) by its ID' and lists the record content. This distinguishes it from sibling search/get tools by focusing on a specific outlet ID retrieval.

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 usage: when you have an outlet ID and need the full record. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context of siblings (search, find near) suggests this is the direct lookup. There is no clear exclusion, but it doesn't name alternatives, hence 4.

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