get_complaint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden alone. 'Read' usefully signals a non-mutating, single-record fetch, but nothing is said about permissions, error behavior for a missing id, or payload size. An output schema exists, so return-format disclosure is not required here.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, lookup key, and returned content are all packed in without waste.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and for a one-parameter read-by-id tool this is largely sufficient. The only real omission is guidance on how an agent obtains a valid complaint id, which list_complaints presumably supplies.

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%, so the schema does not explain complaint_id. The phrase 'by its id' at least establishes that the parameter is the record identifier, but adds no format, validation, or sourcing details (e.g., where ids come from).

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a complaint') and pins the lookup key ('by its id'). It is clearly distinct from list_complaints, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_complaints (e.g., 'use list_complaints first to obtain the id'). Usage is only implied by the name and the 'by its id' phrasing.

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