get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it fully delivers: it declares the tool read-only, promises a plain honest error rather than a blank success-like reply, enumerates the exact error conditions, and describes the two possible outputs. This is exemplary transparency for a simple read 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?

The description is compact yet dense: purpose, sibling guidance, read-only guarantee, error behavior, and return format are all covered in about five sentences. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is fully complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it (and when not to), what errors look like, and what the response will be. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already covers 'id' at 100%, but the description adds meaningful semantics: the id must already be known, an unknown id produces an honest error instead of a blank result, and the reply is the whole item. This goes beyond the schema's 'The id to show' by clarifying the contract and failure behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('shows one item whole, by id') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling 'lookup', which is for when the id is not known. This gives an agent a crisp mental model of the tool without needing to inspect the schema.

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?

It explicitly says to use 'lookup' when the id is not already known, and for DIVERGED items it tells the agent to read history and then use 'resolve'. These are concrete routing instructions that select this tool versus the relevant alternatives.

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