get_warehouse

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely drops it. Nothing is said about behavior on a missing/invalid ID, permission requirements, or what is returned; the only added context is the '(Holded API v2)' tag, which conveys little.

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?

One short sentence, zero filler, with the resource and lookup key front-loaded. Nothing in the sentence could be removed without losing information.

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 single-parameter, single-record lookup with full schema coverage and a fully-described required key, the description says enough for an agent to invoke it correctly; the missing pieces (error semantics, return shape) are minor for a trivial read.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents warehouseId. The description's "by ID" merely restates the parameter's purpose without adding format, sourcing, or validation meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (warehouse) with the lookup key (ID) made explicit, which cleanly separates it from list_warehouses and the create/update/delete siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings as alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"by ID" implies you need a known warehouse ID, which implicitly routes an agent here rather than to list_warehouses. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the list/create/update/delete siblings, and no prerequisite or error guidance.

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