collectionFeatureDetails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'retrieves details', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves details') and resource ('collection feature'), making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'details' include, how results are structured, or any behavioral context needed for reliable use. For a retrieval tool with minimal structured data, the description should provide more context to compensate.

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%, with the single parameter 'url' documented as 'The URL of the collection feature'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as URL format or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without extra description.

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 states the tool 'retrieves details for a given collection feature', which clearly indicates a read operation on a specific resource type. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'featureDetails' or 'findCollectionByUrl', leaving ambiguity about scope or uniqueness. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity compared to alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'featureDetails' or 'findCollectionByUrl'. The description implies it operates on 'collection features' but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. This leaves the agent without context for selection among similar tools.

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