get_investigation

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

With no annotations provided, the description relies on the word 'Fetch' to imply a read-only operation, which is a basic safety signal. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent, limiting its transparency.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without any redundant information. It is well-structured and easy to parse, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks detail about what 'metadata' includes or what the return value looks like. It could be more complete by clarifying the response structure or typical use case.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (access_token and investigation_id), and the description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 fetches investigation metadata and practitioner metadata using the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like investigation_summary or get_run, which could also return similar data.

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 compared to alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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