get_error_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'sanitized' (suggesting redacted/safe output) and 'deterministic indicators' (suggesting consistent results), which are useful but vague and do not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. However, its vague terms ('sanitized', 'deterministic indicators') do not fully earn their place by conveying actionable meaning, keeping it from a 5.

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 retrieval tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should at least clarify the messageId parameter's role and what the returned error information or indicators look like, given that no output schema exists to explain the return value.

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 0%, so the single required messageId parameter has no schema-level explanation. The description does not mention messageId at all, nor does it say what kind of message identifier to supply or where to obtain it. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds essentially no semantic meaning 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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('error information'), but 'sanitized' and 'deterministic indicators' are vague jargon, and the description never mentions that it operates on a specific message. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_message_details or analyze_failure, so an agent cannot tell its scope apart from related tools.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. Siblings such as get_message_details, get_failed_messages, and analyze_failure are never mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when this specific retrieval tool is appropriate.

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