boutique_get

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

The annotations already declare the operation as safe (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds value by detailing what the returned catalog card contains (e.g., 'names, descriptions and card URLs in every available language'), which is not covered by annotations. It does not disclose error behavior or rate limits, but the output schema covers return structure.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the scope ('Full catalog card for one entry') and then enumerates the included fields. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read operation with rich annotations and an output schema. The description clearly explains what the tool returns and is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, especially given the sibling tools and parameter context.

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?

The single parameter 'id' has 100% schema description coverage, including examples from boutique_search. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Full catalog card for one entry,' which clearly identifies a retrieval operation for a single catalog item. It lists the specific content fields (names, descriptions, card URLs, install command, version, license, source URL), making the tool's purpose concrete. This also distinguishes it from sibling boutique_search, which searches across entries.

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 phrase 'for one entry' clearly indicates this tool is for fetching a specific catalog item, implying the user should already have an entry id. The schema further specifies id comes from boutique_search, but the description itself does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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