get_stewardship_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the enterprise tier requirement, which is a behavioral constraint, but does not mention error handling, idempotency, or other side effects. For a read-only operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's action, key output fields, and a usage requirement. It lacks details on error responses or exact output structure, but is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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% with a basic description for the 'id' parameter. The description adds context by specifying what the returned detail includes, but does not add new semantic constraints or formats beyond the 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 action ('get full detail'), the resource ('specific stewardship report by ID'), and the contents (resolution analysis, vote recommendations, policy). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_stewardship_reports' and 'get_proxy_report'.

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 implies using when full detail of a specific report is needed, and mentions 'Enterprise tier required' as a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'list_stewardship_reports'.

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