get_answer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool returns the full content including specific sections, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose anything beyond that, such as error behavior for invalid slugs or whether the response is structured. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and the return contents, and the Args section is a single line that adds the key usage hint. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns, how to get the required parameter, and the annotations cover safety. The only missing piece is error handling for invalid slugs, but that is minor given the output schema and the explicit prerequisite guidance.

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 does: it explains that slug is the Q&A identifier and tells the agent how to obtain it (via list_questions or search_answers). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property name 'Slug'. The only minor gap is not specifying the format of the slug, but the guidance to get it from sibling tools is sufficient.

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's purpose: retrieving the full content of a Q&A entry by slug, listing the specific components (正文, 要点, 标准条款依据, 常见追问). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly instructing the agent to first use list_questions or search_answers to obtain the slug, which differentiates it from listing/searching tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: after obtaining a slug from list_questions or search_answers. It also implies this is the retrieval tool for full details, as opposed to the listing/searching siblings. This is clear usage guidance with an explicit prerequisite.

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