get_coach

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states it returns null for an unknown id and identifies the record fields, but does not mention other traits like read-only status or rate limits, which are largely implicit for a get operation.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the return fields and the edge-case behavior. The example is efficiently integrated.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description needs no return-value detail. It fully covers what the tool does, what the parameter means, and a key edge case (null return), making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only lists coach_id with a type, but the description gives an example ('coach_4') and clarifies that the parameter is the lookup key. This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage.

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 ('get') and resource ('coach'), clearly stating it fetches a full record by id. It lists the returned fields and distinguishes from search-like siblings by explicitly requiring an id, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when the coach_id is known and a full record is needed, with an example of id format. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search_coaches for finding an id, but the 'by id' phrasing provides clear context without exclusions.

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