Get condition set

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

The description adds some behavioral context by mentioning 'Reads account data' and the OAuth scope requirement 'condition_sets:read', which supplements the annotations that only indicate read-only and idempotent characteristics. However, it does not disclose what data is returned, error conditions, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this partial addition merits a 3.

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 very concise with three short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, then authentication details. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be more informative without being verbose.

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?

The description is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. It provides no information about the return value, the meaning of 'condition set', or how to use the 'expand' parameter for stats. While annotations cover safety, the description fails to compensate for the lack of output schema and should do more to explain what an agent can expect.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters like 'expand', 'account', and the required IDs are fully documented in the schema, including enum options and patterns. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 'Get condition set' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name and title without adding specificity about what the tool actually does or returns. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'list_condition_sets' or explain what condition sets are. The schema and annotations provide more clarity than the description itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_condition_sets'. There is no indication of context, prerequisites, or what distinguishes retrieving a single condition set from listing them. The only additional instruction is about authentication requirements, which is tangential to usage guidance.

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