get_share

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions public access and no auth, but omits critical details like idempotency, error handling for invalid share IDs, or any side effects. The tool likely reads data, but this is implied rather than stated.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral trait. No unnecessary words. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. However, since there is no output schema, it would benefit from mentioning what data the share includes (e.g., website name, URL). Currently leaves the return format unspecified.

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 input schema already describes the shareId parameter fully (100% coverage). The description reinforces the parameter's role ('by share ID') but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 shared website data by share ID. It distinguishes itself from other get_* tools by highlighting public access and no auth requirements, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like get_website.

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 notes that no authentication is required for the share itself, providing context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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