get_turnstile_widget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get details', which is essentially restating the operation already implied by the tool name, and it adds no context about response contents, side effects, permissions, or error behavior. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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 concise sentence with no filler and front-loads the main action. It is readable and to the point, though its brevity sacrifices useful context that would improve other dimensions.

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 two-parameter getter, the schema covers the required inputs, and the description clarifies the resource type. However, with no output schema and no mention of what 'details' means or when to choose this over list_turnstile_widgets, the description leaves notable gaps. An agent can still call it correctly, but not with full confidence about the result or context.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about how account_id or widget_id should be obtained or formatted. It neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific Turnstile widget'). The word 'specific' helps distinguish it from the sibling list_turnstile_widgets, so an agent can tell this is a single-item getter rather than a list operation. It does not enumerate what details are returned, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_turnstile_widgets. There are no prerequisites, no selection criteria, and no exclusion conditions mentioned. The word 'specific' weakly implies a prior lookup but does not constitute clear usage guidance.

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