Get Quarantine

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing return-side behavior: it includes a full change history (events) and a scoped 90-day window of coveredRuns (total plus the 10 latest), which is genuinely useful context about result scope and completeness.

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, front-loaded with the verb+resource summary before the field enumeration, with no filler. The trailing explanatory clause about why runs were covered is slightly dense but earns its place by clarifying the coveredRuns concept.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably well by naming the fields, the event history, and the coveredRuns window and count. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, though pagination or linking guidance would round it out.

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 both parameters, including the origin of quarantine_id ("as list_test_controls returns it"), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, making the baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Read one quarantine") and enumerates the returned fields (reason, assignee, end date, coverage, state, event history), so an agent immediately knows this is a single-record read rather than a list or mutation. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (list_test_controls, update_quarantine), so it falls short of the 5-level sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as list_test_controls or get_test_controls for other views. The only hint of usage is the schema note that the id comes from list_test_controls, which is not guidance on when to reach for this tool.

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