get_ask

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It does a reasonable job: 'Fetch' signals read-only, 'public ask' scopes the resource, the 404/error for verified-only asks is a concrete behavioral condition, and 'bundled product summary' tells the agent what the response includes. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or response format, but for this simple read the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 sentences, zero filler. The core action and distinguishing behavior are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the workflow guidance is compressed into the second. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with one simple parameter and a configurable failure mode, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the distinguishing response detail, and the verified-only error path. It lacks an explicit statement of return structure (no output schema is provided), but the bundled product summary hint gives the agent enough context to select this tool. Minor gaps around auth and exact error codes keep it short of a 5.

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%, with the 'id' parameter already described as 'Ask UUID' and format uuid. The description confirms the parameter is the UUID ('by UUID') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high schema_description_coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb-resource pair ('Fetch one public ask by UUID') and adds a distinctive detail ('with the bundled product summary') that separates it from get_product and list_asks. The term 'public ask' and the error condition for verified-only asks further pin down exactly which resource variant this handles.

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 an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Use this after list_asks to inspect an ask in detail before deciding to review it.' This situates the tool in a workflow and implicitly contrasts it with list_asks (bulk listing) and submit_review (acting on the ask). However, it does not name direct alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions for edge cases like needing verified-only asks.

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