get_structured_content

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 discloses the prerequisite (must publish first), the authentication requirement (Bearer token), error conditions (NOT_AUTHORIZED, ARGUMENTS_ERROR), and the general response structure. This is rich context beyond what the schema provides. It could be improved by stating whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit) and rate limit info, but overall it is quite thorough for a read tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (ENDPOINT, PURPOSE, RESPONSE, ERRORS, AUTHENTICATION) and front-loaded key information. It is slightly verbose with some repetition (e.g., 'latest published' appears twice), but every sentence adds useful value.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the response fields (page_version_number, modules, widgets) and error cases. It covers authentication and prerequisites. However, without an output schema, it could provide more detail on the structure of modules/widgets or pagination, but it is largely 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (event_id required, purpose with default). The description adds the meaning of the purpose values (listing vs digital_content) and reinforces the event_id requirement. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Retrieve latest published structured content for event.' The 'purpose' parameter values (listing vs digital_content) clarify what kind of content is returned, and the relationship to set_structured_content is implied via 'Must publish version first (publish=true in set).' This distinguishes it from most siblings like get_event_description.

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 explains the prerequisite (publish version first) and the two purposes for using this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like get_event_description, which likely returns a different form of event description.

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