get_anchorage

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions returning data without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The description lacks behavioral details beyond the output content.

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 a single concise sentence. It effectively communicates the core functionality without extraneous words, though it could be structured to include parameter constraints.

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 the simplicity (1 required param, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it does not describe the return structure or what constitutes 'full record,' which would be helpful for an agent. An output schema would mitigate this, but none is provided.

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?

The single parameter 'name' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description only implies it is the anchorage name. No format, case sensitivity, or validation details are provided, leaving the agent to guess constraints.

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 returns 'full record and verbatim pilot-book prose for one named anchorage,' specifying the verb (get) and resource (anchorage by name). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like find_anchorages_near (search) and rank_anchorages (ranking).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The purpose is clear but does not mention alternatives or context like using find_anchorages_near for searching. The agent must infer usage from sibling names.

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