Get Shared Response

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds non-redundant behavioral context: the return payload (schema, headers, example, rowVersion), the scope selector, and the includeUsedBy restriction to project scope. There is no contradiction between the description and the read-only annotation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return payload, then the two behavioral knobs. Every sentence earns its place with no filler and no repetition of schema 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 read-only 3-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the return content, scope semantics, and the includeUsedBy constraint. Minor gap: no stated error or edge-case behavior for invalid scope values or includeUsedBy=true at org scope, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters are already well documented. The description adds modest reinforcement (scope values, includeUsedBy meaning and its project-only limit) but no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get one shared response') and itemizes the returned content (schema, headers, example, rowVersion), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_shared_responses and get_shared_schema. The scope qualifier ('project'/'org') further pins down what the operation acts on.

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 clear operational context (default scope, includeUsedBy behavior, project-scope-only restriction) but never tells an agent when to choose this over its close siblings such as list_shared_responses or get_shared_schema. The when-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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