doj_blog_detail

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by listing the returned fields (complete body, component, topic, date, URL), which is useful beyond annotations. It does not mention pagination or errors, but for a simple read operation that is acceptable.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and target, and the second enumerates the return fields. No wasted words; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. The annotations cover safety and idempotency. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, and the single parameter 'uuid' is well-described as 'UUID of the blog entry (from search results)'. The description itself only repeats the fact that it uses a UUID, adding no additional semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('full text of a specific DOJ blog entry'), and input (UUID). It explicitly lists the return fields (body, component, topic, date, URL), which distinguishes it from the sibling doj_blog_entries that likely lists entries. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 after a search by noting the UUID comes 'from search results' in the parameter schema. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a simple detail-lookup tool this is sufficient context. The sibling list contains doj_blog_entries and doj_press_release_detail, which are obviously different in scope.

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