get_counterparty

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'get full details' but does not specify what 'full details' includes, whether the response is a summary or raw object (though the 'raw' parameter hints at this), or any error behavior. It is not misleading but lacks depth beyond the basic read operation.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema) and the clear sibling context, the description is largely sufficient. It does not explain what a counterparty is or detail the return format, but these are reasonable omissions for a get-by-id tool. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already clearly describes 'id' as 'Counterparty UUID' and 'raw' as returning the full raw object. The description's phrase 'full details' somewhat overlaps with the parameter semantics but does not add new information.

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 the verb ('Get'), resource ('counterparty'), and scope ('by UUID'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_counterparties (plural) by indicating it retrieves a single entity by its identifier.

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 phrase 'by UUID' provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving a specific counterparty when the UUID is known. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the usage scenario is self-evident given the sibling tool names and the parameter requirement.

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