get_wanted_cutoff_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description's 'Read' and GET method are consistent with these annotations but add no additional behavioral context such as error cases, permissions, or response 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?

The description is very brief and front-loaded with the core action. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but there is no padding or irrelevant content.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks any explanation of what a wanted cutoff is, leaving the agent to guess the domain meaning and the source of the ID.

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. It only repeats the parameter name and notes 'id: Path parameter,' which adds a location detail but no meaning about what the ID represents or how to obtain it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read Cutoff.' The endpoint GET /api/v3/wanted/cutoff/{id} clarifies this is a single-item fetch by ID, and the singular path distinguishes it from list_wanted_cutoff, though it never explains what a 'cutoff' is.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_wanted_cutoff or get_wanted_missing_by_id. The only implied usage is through the path parameter, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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