Get a collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds non-obvious behavior on top: counters are cached by default, verify triggers a slower authoritative recount, purge_after appears only when a deletion is pending, and the call is free. These are exactly the traits an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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 sentences, zero filler: what it returns first, the caching/verify trade-off second, cost last. Every clause carries information an agent needs, and the most important detail (default is cached) is positioned early.

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, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, and it covers the caching caveat and cost. Remaining gaps are minor — the possible values of status and the behavior for a nonexistent or purged collection_id are not described.

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%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds modest meaning for verify by contrasting it with the cached-counter default, but says nothing extra about collection_id beyond what the schema's format constraints already state.

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?

"Show one collection" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource and immediately enumerates the fields returned (status, photo_count, face_count, selfie_count, created_at, purge_after), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It is distinguishable from list_collections by the singular scope, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives one concrete decision rule — set verify=true to recount from the vector store instead of trusting cached counters — which is genuine when-to-use guidance for that parameter. It offers nothing on when to call this versus list_collections, get_deletion_status, or restore_collection, so the broader routing decision is left to inference.

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