get_finishing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned data (flat-rate and percentage pricing formulas), which is useful. It says nothing about behavior on an unknown/invalid ID, whether the operation is read-only, or any permission requirements — gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead and the key qualifier ('by ID') closes it. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent both what entity is fetched and what data it returns (flat-rate and percentage formulas). The remaining gap is behavioral — error handling and where the ID originates — rather than a missing core concept.

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 the single id parameter is already documented as a positive integer unique ID, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by ID' adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (flat-rate and percentage pricing formulas for a post-processing finishing operation) with an explicit lookup key (by ID). This cleanly separates it from the sibling list_finishings, which enumerates rather than fetches one. An agent can select it without opening 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'by ID' signals that an identifier is required, which in practice comes from list_finishings. However, the description never names that sibling, gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions, and states no prerequisites. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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