Get Best Practices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds important context: it accesses a proprietary registry under Elastic License 2.0, warns against enumeration, and sets a call limit. This goes beyond annotations by explaining access constraints.

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 front-loaded with the main action and efficiently adds necessary legal and usage notices. Some redundancy in the proprietary notice could be trimmed, but overall each sentence serves a 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?

No output schema, but the description doesn't explain what the tool returns. It covers input well and addresses constraints. For a read-only tool with 4 parameters and good annotations, it is mostly complete but lacks return value description.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds minor context (e.g., libraryId can come from gt_resolve_library, topic examples). With full schema coverage, the description provides marginal added value.

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 clearly states the tool fetches 'latest best practices, patterns, and guidelines' for libraries or frameworks, and distinguishes itself from 'generic reference docs'. It also specifies it targets specific libraries by name, differentiating it from siblings like gt_get_docs.

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 includes a usage limit (3 calls per question) and a proprietary data notice restricting use to answering specific questions, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-to-use/not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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