Get functionality details (step 2/3)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds workflow-relevant behavioral context by disclosing that the tool returns the 'required parameters' needed for a subsequent execution step. This adds value beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

A single ~14-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and carries no filler, redundancy, or repetition of annotation content. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only lookup with two fully documented parameters, an enum, a comprehensive output schema, and a complete annotation set, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing. Workflow context is carried by the title ('step 2/3') and schema hint (functionalityId 'from list_functionality').

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%, and both parameters carry meaningful descriptions; functionalityId even documents that its values come from list_functionality. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Gets' with a concrete resource ('required parameters and detailed information for a specific functionality'), and the phrase 'before executing it' distinguishes it from the sibling execute_functionality. The title's 'step 2/3' further reinforces its distinct role in a prepare-then-execute workflow.

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 frames usage contextually — 'before executing it' tells the agent this is a prerequisite step to execution, and the title marks it as step 2/3 in a sequence. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow position is clear enough that an agent will know to call it between list_functionality and execute_functionality.

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