shared_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds '(public)', implying no authentication is needed, which is useful context. However, it does not explain the non-idempotent and openWorld hints, nor the behavior of the no-argument form.

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 telegraphic sentences with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every clause carries some information, though the '(public)' tag is terse enough to be ambiguous.

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?

With no output schema, 'Returns the SharedDeck' names the return type but says nothing about its fields. Combined with the unexplained optional-parameter behavior, the description covers the basics but not enough for a fully confident call.

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 coverage is 100% for the single deck_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that deck_id is optional, adding nothing about format or the semantics of omitting 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information for a community shared deck.' That is clearer than the bare name and tells the agent it retrieves a single deck's detail, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with shared_search or shared_brief.

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 indication of when to choose this over shared_search or shared_brief, and no statement of what happens when deck_id is omitted. The 'Optional: deck_id' note hints at two modes but leaves the agent to guess what the no-argument call returns.

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