get_subsidy_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses return contents (title, summary, eligibility, etc.), distinguishes source_url vs. _source, instructs the agent to cite _source, and notes the tool is 'Free.' This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple fetch, though it does not discuss error handling or rate limits.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action, lists the returned fields efficiently, and includes the citation and cost note in a compact second sentence.

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource type, id format is covered by the schema, and it enumerates the returned fields so the agent knows what to expect. Minor gaps include no mention of error behavior or output structure, but the description suffices for this straightforward fetch.

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 100% coverage of the single 'id' parameter, including examples and format. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing 'by id', so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full record for a single subsidy by id'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_subsidies or get_municipality_grants. The action is unambiguous and the scope (single record) is explicit.

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 usage is implied: you need an id to fetch a detail, and the description lists return fields, suggesting this tool provides full detail. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus search_subsidies or other siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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