ispw_get_release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it returns 'owner, stream, application, status, and timestamps' and can return an error message, but that field list largely duplicates the output schema rather than disclosing new behavioral traits.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by detail, args, returns, and a short example. The Args/Returns blocks restate schema content and could be trimmed, but overall it is compact and well-ordered.

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 single-object read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, inputs, default format, error behavior, and includes an example. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, aside from guidance on how to obtain a valid release_id.

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 reported at 0% for the top-level 'params' wrapper, so the description carries weight here: it names srid, release_id, and response_format (with its markdown default) and gives a concrete example value pairing. That compensates for the coverage gap, though it adds no format/validation detail for release_id.

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?

First sentence uses a specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('a specific ISPW release'), and the word 'specific' implicitly distinguishes it from ispw_list_releases. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling, but an agent can tell it retrieves one release rather than a collection.

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?

Usage is only implied: the example ('Get release: srid="ISPW", release_id="REL001"') and the phrase 'release_id: Release identifier to retrieve' suggest you must already know the ID. No when-to-use/when-not guidance or explicit routing to ispw_list_releases for discovery is provided.

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