get-hashtag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get hashtag details') without mentioning permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' entail (e.g., metadata, usage statistics). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond basic input-output.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a read operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include in the return values, potential errors, or behavioral aspects like caching or permissions. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'tag' documented as 'ハッシュタグ名' (hashtag name). The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param info in the description.

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 'ハッシュタグの詳細を取得する' (Get hashtag details) clearly states the verb '取得する' (get) and resource 'ハッシュタグの詳細' (hashtag details), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-hashtags' or 'search-all', which might also involve hashtag-related operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools such as 'list-hashtags' and 'search-all' that might overlap in functionality, but the description doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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