Explain error

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the informational nature of the tool and enumerates output facets (meaning, HTTP status, retryability, remediation, related operations). It doesn't mention edge cases like unknown error codes, but it is reasonably transparent for a read-oriented lookup tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates exactly what the tool provides. Zero filler; every phrase communicates a distinct piece of useful 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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it identifies the input and specifies the categories of output. Minor gaps are the lack of an explicit note about read-only behavior or behavior for invalid codes.

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 only declares errorCode as a string with no description or format. The description compensates minimally by saying 'for one error code' — enough to know what to pass, but with no examples, accepted formats, or guidance on how to find valid codes.

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 clearly defines the tool's purpose: explaining an error code by returning its meaning, HTTP status, retryability, remediation, and related operations. The resource is specific and the action is implied by the name and description, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools.

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 when to use it — for a single error code — but gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives among sibling tools like get_operation or get_recipe.

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