warehouse_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the return contents (connection string and provisioning status), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authorization requirements or potential errors, but the annotations lower the burden. No contradiction with 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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Get details') and the resource ('specific warehouse'), then specifies key return fields. Every word is essential and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter.

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 read-only getter with two well-documented parameters and safety annotations, this description is nearly sufficient. It tells the agent what key details will be returned, which compensates somewhat for the missing output schema. However, it does not state the full set of returned properties (the word 'including' implies it is non-exhaustive) and does not point to sibling tools for more specific fetches, so it falls just short of fully complete.

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% — both warehouseId and workspaceId are already described in the schema as 'The warehouse ID' and 'The workspace ID'. The tool description adds no further meaning about the parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific warehouse'. It also names two distinguishing pieces of returned content (connection string and provisioning status), which sets it apart from related getters like warehouse_get_sql_endpoint and warehouse_get_definition. An agent can clearly understand what this tool does.

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 clearly implies the usage context: when you need overall details of a specific warehouse. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools (e.g., warehouse_get_sql_endpoint for the connection string only), so there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance. This gives a clear context without exclusions, matching a 4.

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