doj_press_release_detail

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to cover side effects. It adds transparency about the response by listing the returned fields (full body, component, topic, date, URL), which is useful because there is no output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and key identifier, with no filler. The return-field list is compact and directly relevant.

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 one-parameter, read-only detail fetch with rich annotations, the description is self-sufficient: it names the input, the resource, and the expected return fields. No critical information for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema documents it fully ('UUID of the press release (from search results)'). The description merely restates that the release is fetched by UUID, adding no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the exact operation: getting the full text of a single DOJ press release, keyed by UUID. The singular 'specific...by UUID' clearly separates it from the sibling list tool doj_press_releases and from doj_blog_detail.

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 schema clarifies that the UUID comes 'from search results', making the intended usage clear: look up full details after identifying a release. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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