Get MPL Custom Header Properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get', which weakly implies read-only. It does not explicitly state whether the operation has side effects, requires specific permissions, or what happens when no custom properties exist. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond the basic operation.

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 that front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundant information or filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 gives the essential purpose, but it lacks guidance on parameter usage and return value shape. It mentions 'for a message' but without clarifying that this refers to a message processing log (MPL), potentially causing ambiguity. Overall, it is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema has one parameter, messageGuid, with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention the parameter or add any meaning to it. Despite the parameter name being somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail, leaving the agent without additional semantic guidance.

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 'Get custom header properties (business keys, custom status) for a message' clearly states a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling tools like get_mpl_error_information or get_mpl_run_steps. The parenthetical clarifies what the properties include, making the purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. It simply states what the tool does without contextualizing it among the many related MPL and integration tools.

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