Manager Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds that it returns the exact shape and mentions non-guessable field names, which gives insight into the data model. However, it does not disclose details like error cases, pagination, or authentication, but given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides usage guidance, all in a compact and efficient manner. Every clause adds value.

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?

With 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and only an output schema, the description fails to explain the 'resource' and 'business' parameters, which are crucial for correct invocation. The agent cannot determine what valid resource values are or how to construct the request without additional information, making the description incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only explains 'key' (by its Key GUID), leaving 'resource' and 'business' undocumented. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the agent has to guess what 'resource' refers to, which is a significant gap.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'one record by its Key (GUID)' and specifies the output shape ('exact shape Manager stores it'). It also differentiates from siblings by indicating its role before updates and as a template for create, making it distinct from tools like manager_list or manager_create.

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 provides when to use this tool: 'Always do this before an update' and 'use an existing record as the template for a create'. It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or alternative tools, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to understand the primary use case.

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