Get a collection (map by default)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the default return is a lightweight map rather than the full payload, and the full Postman response is opt-in. It omits any note on auth (though access_key is in the schema) or pagination/size limits.

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?

Front-loads the core action and default, then presents the opt-in variants as two tight bullets. Every sentence carries information; nothing is repeated from the title or schema verbatim.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return shape and does so for both the default map and the model variants. It is slightly thin on what 'recursive itemRefs' means in practice and says nothing about access_key behavior, but for a read-only single-resource getter it is nearly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: model=minimal is spelled out as 'root-level folder/request IDs only' and the default (omitted) as a recursive itemRefs map, whereas the schema's enum text is vaguer ('Postman minimal model'). That is real added value over the structured field.

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 (Get) and resource (collection) and immediately names the default behavior (lightweight collection map with metadata + recursive itemRefs), which is what distinguishes it from the sibling getCollections. An agent can tell this retrieves a single collection and what shape it gets by default 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?

Gives clear guidance on how to use the tool: omit model for the default map, or opt in to minimal/full API responses. It does not name an alternative sibling (e.g. getCollections for listing) or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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