Get one solution

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms a read operation ('Return the full record') without indicating idempotency, rate limits, or error behavior. It does not state whether the returned record is guaranteed fresh or cached, nor whether authentication is needed. This is adequate but minimal.

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 a single sentence (14 words) that efficiently captures purpose, resource, and method. Every word is relevant. No wasted phrasing. Front-loaded with the action 'Return the full record' – ideal for scanning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required param, no nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient functional purpose. However, it lacks mention of what happens if the id is invalid (e.g., 404), or whether the response includes nested objects like related items. The absence of an output schema means the description should hint at the 'full record' structure, but it does not enumerate fields. It is just adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate. The description mentions 'by id,' which maps to the required 'id' parameter, adding basic context. However, it does not clarify that id is a string (schema indicates type), nor does it provide format guidance (e.g., UUID vs plain string). For a single required param, this is borderline acceptable but lacks helpful detail 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 clearly states 'Return the full record for a single solution by id,' specifying the verb (return) and resource (full record for solution) and the identifying method (by id). It distinguishes from list_categories and search_solutions (which retrieve multiple) and compare_solutions (comparison), but could be more explicit that this is the singular retrieval endpoint.

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 use when you need a complete record of a known solution, contrasting with search_solutions (which returns summaries/partial data) and list_categories (which returns categories, not solutions). However, no explicit 'when not to use' guidance is given, though the sibling context clarifies alternatives. The lack of mention about requiring the ID beforehand is a minor gap.

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