get criterion

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the exact returned field list, the 404 'Criterion not found' condition for ids outside the workspace, and the note that trust/drift derivations are identical to GET /v1/criteria.

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 and API endpoint before the detailed field list. The field enumeration is long but justified because there is no output schema; still, it could have been slightly more compact without losing 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 no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the return fields, documenting the 404 error case, and noting the read scope. For a single-resource read operation, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with 'Criterion id.', so the baseline is 3. The description enriches this by showing the id is used as a path parameter in GET /v1/criteria/{id} and clarifying that a missing or out-of-workspace id results in a 404 rather than an empty result.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Fetch one criterion' with its calibration metrics, trust verdict, and derived intervals. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_criteria or get_criterion_certificate by specifying exactly what payload this single-criterion fetch returns.

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 clearly indicates this is the tool to retrieve one specific criterion by id, including metrics and trust verdicts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the 'one criterion' phrasing and the note that derivations match GET /v1/criteria provide usable context.

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