get_segment_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether it returns nested data. For a tool with two required parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential function.

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 retrieval tool with two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how the segment relates to the publication, what format the response takes, or potential error scenarios. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output structure.

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 both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying these IDs are needed to fetch segment details. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't enhance understanding of what constitutes valid IDs or their relationships.

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 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific segment', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_segments' (which likely lists segments) or 'get_publication_details' (which focuses on publications rather than segments).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_segments' (for listing segments) or 'get_post_details' (for post-level details). It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between these similar retrieval tools.

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