get_photo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add that the result includes caption, alt text and available sizes. It says nothing about what happens when the ID does not exist, permission/auth needs, or rate limits. Since an output schema exists, the payload description is partly redundant rather than genuinely additive.

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 that identifies the resource, the lookup key, and the payload with zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the essentials are mostly covered, but with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage the description should have addressed response_format and error behavior for a missing ID. It is adequate but visibly thin on the gaps structured fields leave open.

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 description must compensate, but it only restates 'numeric ID' (already implied by type integer, minimum 1) and never mentions response_format or the json/markdown serialization choice. The enum-bearing parameter is entirely undocumented in prose.

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 ('Fetch a single photo') and scopes it to the numeric ID, which distinguishes it from search_photos and get_article_photos. It does not name a sibling explicitly, and it also advertises a return payload ('caption, alt text and available sizes') that belongs to the fetching, not the identifying, but a reader can still route to it correctly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'single photo by numeric ID' signals a direct lookup versus the siblings search_photos and get_article_photos, and the 'numeric ID' key contrasts with get_article_by_slug. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative.

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