get_examinee

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Sensitive auth fields are never returned' and that customData is included. This helps an agent understand the response boundary.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core behavior and key parameter are front-loaded, and the sensitive-field caveat is placed as a concise follow-up. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given an output schema exists and the tool has only one parameter, the description is complete. It states scope (current team), the ID source, included data (customData), and an important exclusion (sensitive auth fields). No critical information needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 fully documents examineeId as the business ID shown in list_examinees. The description repeats this example and adds the alias 'respondent,' but it does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('View the full detail of one examinee'), names the resource ('examinee / respondent'), and specifies the lookup key ('examineeId'). It clearly distinguishes this from list_examinees and update_examinee by indicating it returns the full detail of a single examinee, including customData.

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 gives clear context: it is for viewing one examinee by business ID, scoped to the current team, and references list_examinees as the source of the ID. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the single-resource vs. list distinction is implied strongly enough.

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