Get position

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail about default field selection (though inaccurately) and the cent-based interpretation of monetary values. However, it claims 'returning all fields by default' while the input schema for the 'fields' parameter says 'Omit for a compact default set', creating a direct contradiction in behavior disclosure.

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 concise at three sentences, with no fluff or redundant filler. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: primary action, usage alternative, and parameter/data note. However, the inaccurate claim about default fields slightly reduces the overall quality since one sentence contains misleading information.

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 relatively simple read operation, the description covers the essential aspects: the core action, a clear alternative workflow, the fields parameter behavior, and the cent-based monetary format. It does not describe error cases, but given the available annotations and a small parameter set, the description is mostly complete. The only significant gap is the aforementioned default-fields contradiction, which leaves a factual gap in expected behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add the monetary-unit note (150 = 1.50 EUR), which is relevant for interpreting amounts. However, it also contradicts the schema's own parameter description for 'fields': the tool description says 'returning all fields by default' but the schema says omitting fields returns a compact default set. This inconsistency undermines parameter clarity and reduces the value added beyond the schema.

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 'Fetch one position by its numeric easybill ID', using the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly scoping the resource to a single position by ID. It also differentiates from the sibling tool easybill_list_positions by indicating that the list tool should be used when only a name or number is known, so the purpose is unambiguous and well-distinguished.

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 explicitly provides a when-not-to-use instruction: 'Use easybill_list_positions first if you only know a name or number.' This names the alternative tool and clarifies the condition for using this get-by-ID tool instead. It also gives guidance on using the 'fields' parameter to narrow the response, which is practical for invocation.

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