get_party

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by listing the return payload (type, name fields, emails, phones, addresses, websites, embedded tags/custom fields) and the effect of the embed parameter. It doesn't cover error handling or pagination, but for a single-read fetch this is not critical.

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?

Two concise sentences. The core action and resource are stated first, followed by embed usage and sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description is complete: it says what the tool returns, how to request additional embeds, and when to prefer the batch alternative. The only minor note is that the schema marks id as optional (required=0), but the description implies id is essential.

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 already describes both parameters (id and embed) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by clarifying that id is numeric, and by explaining embed with the example value 'tags,fields' and a rationale for using it. This goes beyond the schema's terse 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies a single resource ('a single party'), and specifies the key identifier ('by its numeric id'). It also distinguishes itself from the batch sibling get_parties by explicitly noting the single-party scope.

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 clearly states when to use which tool: 'For batch fetches of up to 50 parties at once, use get_parties instead.' It also advises using embed='tags,fields' to include related data in one round-trip, giving practical usage guidance.

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