Get one concept

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'including its value type and version', giving some content context, but no additional behavioral details such as error conditions, localization defaults, or response structure beyond what the output schema would provide. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by concise parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no redundancy or filler. The Args block is clean and easy to parse.

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 lookup with two parametershol, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, how to source concept_id, and what language affects. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 description must carry the parameter meaning burden. It does this well: concept_id is described as a UUID from list_concepts, and language is described as affecting titles and descriptions. These add practical meaning beyond the bare schema names, though the description could have noted the default language.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve one concept definition', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_concepts and get_dataset. The title 'Get one concept' reinforces the singular focus. An agent can immediately tell this tool fetches a single concept by ID rather than listing or searching.

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 gives clear context that concept_id is a 'UUID from list_concepts', which tells the agent where to obtain the ID before calling this tool. It also explains that language is used for titles and descriptions. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool versus search_catalog or list_concepts, so it misses a full explicit exclusion statement.

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