Get one tag

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

The description adds significant behavior beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: it explains that results are read across every catalogue holding the record, that each value names its source catalogues, that disagreements surface the non-preferred reading alongside the winner, and that sources restricts reads to one catalogue. No contradiction with 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?

The description is not overly long and front-loads the core action, but the prose is dense and grammatically awkward ('the catalogue its identifier names', 'reached by the link each of them publishes'), which hurts readability. It could communicate the same behavior in clearer, more compact language.

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 multi-catalogue read with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the key behavioral wrinkles: cross-catalogue resolution, per-value provenance, disagreement handling, and the sources restriction. It does not discuss not-found or error cases, but the main weakness is that the unusual wording obscures rather than clarifies context that is otherwise present.

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 description coverage is low (33%), so the description partially compensates: 'written instance:uuid' clarifies the id format, 'Name sources to read one catalogue alone' explains the sources parameter, and the disagreement/preference text gives meaning to prefer. Still, it does not systematically document each parameter, and the prefer behavior is only conveyed indirectly.

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 opens with 'Read one tag from the catalogue its identifier names, written instance:uuid,' which identifies the action (read) and resource (tag) and indicates lookup by identifier. However, the phrasing is convoluted and could more directly distinguish this from sibling tools like search_tags or get_sources, though the singular 'one tag' helps.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Read one tag' and the mention of identifier-based lookup, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_tags or get_sources. The only direct usage hint is 'Name sources to read one catalogue alone,' which guides a parameter rather than tool selection.

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