get_system

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers useful behavioral detail: it returns all available fields with human-readable names and omits empty fields. What it omits is failure behavior (e.g., what happens for an unknown ID) and any permission requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Four tight sentences with zero filler: identity/purpose first, then return shape, then the routing hint. Each sentence contributes distinct 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand in for both, and it does so by describing the returned fields and the empty-field omission rule. It stops short of covering error/not-found behavior or authorization needs, which is the only meaningful gap for a single-record read.

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% for the single parameter (system_id with its own description), so the schema already documents the input fully. The description's 'by its ID' framing adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full details of a specific data system by its ID'), and the singular scope plus ID-based lookup distinguishes it from the list/search siblings. An agent can tell immediately this is the single-record fetch rather than a query tool.

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?

Explicitly names the alternatives ('list_systems' or 'search_systems') and the condition that selects them ('first to find system IDs'), establishing the correct lookup-then-fetch workflow. Nothing about when to reach for the siblings is left to inference.

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