get_childcare_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only retrieve operation, but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, error handling, or any prerequisites. It also does not mention whether the returned data is comprehensive or if there are limitations. Given no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the included content. It is concise with no filler, though it is somewhat long due to the enumerated details. The structure is effective and easy to parse, earning a 4 rather than 5 for slight density.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It enumerates exactly what data will be returned (tuition rates table, programs, schedule, languages, contact info, ELFA subsidy notes). However, it lacks information about error handling, null returns, or any prerequisites, which a thorough description might include. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a 4.

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 coverage is 100% with the entityId parameter described as 'The entityId of the provider'. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming that the entityId is used to retrieve details, but it does not provide format, type, or validation information beyond what the schema already gives. Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'specific SF childcare or preschool center by its entityId', listing exact content like tuition rates, programs, schedule, languages, contact info, and ELFA subsidy notes. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_sf_childcare (search) and get_elfa_rates_and_rules (rates focus).

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, nor any conditions or exclusions. It does not mention that it is the tool to use when complete details are needed, nor does it reference sibling tools. An agent would have to infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient.

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