get_method_full_name_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the retrieval action and return format, but doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), performance characteristics, or authentication needs. It adds basic context about the return value format, which is helpful but not comprehensive for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return documentation. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the parameter with an example, and the third describes the return format with an example. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter details with examples, and return format with an example. However, it lacks error handling information and doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like performance or side effects, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It explicitly documents the single parameter 'id' with its type (Long int string) and provides a concrete example ('111669149702L'), adding crucial meaning beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. This fully addresses the parameter semantics gap.

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 specific action ('Retrieves') and resource ('fully qualified name of a method by its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_method_code_by_id (which retrieves code) or get_method_by_call_id (which retrieves method details by call ID). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you have a method ID and need its fully qualified name, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_method_full_name_by_call_id or get_method_code_by_id. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.

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