swapi_get_starship

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't mention that this hits a live external API (openWorldHint), whether unknown IDs error or return empty, or any rate-limit behavior.

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 clause with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource. Nothing extraneous, nothing repeated.

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 tool with rich annotations this is nearly sufficient. However, there is no output schema, and the description says nothing about what a starship record contains or what happens on a missing ID, leaving the response shape entirely unknown.

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 already documents type and an example ('10 for Millennium Falcon'). The description's 'by ID' adds nothing the schema doesn't carry, 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Star Wars starship') scoped to a single record by ID. The 'by ID' qualifier implicitly separates it from swapi_search_starships, but the sibling is never named, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus swapi_search_starships, nor on where an ID comes from (a prior search result). The agent must infer the lookup-by-identifier vs discovery-by-name split from the tool names alone.

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