Get one studio

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, explaining how disagreements between catalogues are handled and how sources can limit reads. It discloses the aggregation behavior and preference logic, which annotations don't provide.

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 long sentence with complex phrasing, making it harder to parse. It packs information but lacks clear structure or front-loading of key details.

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?

The description explains the core read behavior, conflict resolution, and sources limitation, which is substantial for a read tool with an output schema. It doesn't detail output format, but the output schema likely covers that, so the description is reasonably complete.

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 covers only 'prefer' with a description, while 'id' and 'sources' lack descriptions. The description explains 'id' format (instance:uuid) and 'sources', but 'prefer' semantics are already in schema. With 33% coverage, description partially compensates but doesn't fully detail 'sources' usage beyond a brief mention.

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 states it reads one studio from the catalogue by identifier, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_scene or get_performer, though the distinct resource (studio) is clear.

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 the tool is for reading a single studio given an ID, and it mentions the 'sources' parameter to read from one catalogue alone, giving some usage context. It doesn't explicitly rule out alternatives, but the context of studio reading is clear.

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