get

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses specific error behavior: it never returns a blank reply that could look like success, and it lists the three error-triggering conditions (unknown id, DIVERGED item, unparseable stored body). It also states the successful response shape: the item as formatted JSON or error text. This is valuable context not present in 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers routing, safety, error behavior, and response format. Every sentence adds distinct information, and the slightly extended error explanation earns its place by preventing an agent from mistaking a failure for success.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description fully covers what is needed: selection criteria, error conditions, and return format. With annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior, there are no significant gaps for an agent to call this 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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter with 'The id to show,' and the description reinforces that the id is used for lookup and can be unknown. Since schema coverage is complete, the description adds minimal extra meaning but does not need to compensate.

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 object: 'shows one item whole, by id,' which clearly distinguishes it from broader operations. It also explicitly names the sibling alternative (lookup) and explains the differentiator, so an agent can identify this tool without inspecting 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?

The description gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use lookup instead when the id is not already known.' It also instructs the agent to read history and use resolve when the item is DIVERGED, making when-to-use and when-not-to-use information directly actionable.

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