get_interpretation

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns only the first 3000 characters of the full content (truncation), HTML is stripped to text, and error conditions are listed. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and input, then details output and errors. Every sentence adds necessary information with no wasted words.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what input it expects, what it returns (including truncation), and possible errors. The absence of output schema is compensated by describing return structure.

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% (one parameter with description). The description adds a format hint (numeric ID can be string or number) and ties it to the concept of ID_INFORMACJI from search results, but the schema already covers meaning. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a full EUREKA document by ID, listing specific returned fields (metadata, thesis, first 3000 chars of content). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (search returns summaries, not full documents) by specifying the input source (from search results).

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 explicitly states the tool is used after obtaining an ID from 'search' results, and lists three error types (missing_arg, not_found, upstream_error). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but context implies it's for full document retrieval after search, which is clear enough for an agent.

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