Get Observation Details

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

Discloses side effects (recording last-accessed metadata) and error conditions (unsupported sources, missing IDs, detail-read failures, memory access-update failures). It also explains best-effort behavior for observation source. The annotations (destructiveHint: true) are consistent with this write behavior, and the description enriches them.

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 a single paragraph but well-structured: purpose, usage, source semantics, and error conditions. Every sentence adds critical information; no wasted words. It is dense yet readable.

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 complexity (4 params, side effects, multiple sources, error paths), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use, side effects, and failure behavior. An output schema exists to handle return details, so no need to describe them here.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning for the 'source' parameter by detailing default, return types, and update success/failure semantics. It also explains that 'ids' come from search results, adding context beyond the schema. Other parameters are adequately covered by 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 tool fetches full details for explicit IDs and records last-accessed metadata. It explicitly differentiates from discovery tools by saying 'Use after search, not for discovery', distinguishing it from siblings like search and timeline.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after search, not for discovery'. It instructs to pass selected IDs and the exact source from search results, and explains the difference between source='memory' and source='observation'. This is clear and actionable.

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