get_sba_metric_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses exactly what the tool returns (display name, category, unit, update cadence, typical lag, etc.), and the 'Get' verb implies a read-only side effect. It also mentions the data source and public domain status. However, it does not explicitly state that no mutation occurs, but that is reasonable for a 'Get' tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return fields, followed by usage guidance and source attribution. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) and the description covers the input, output fields, usage flow, and data source. An output schema exists, but the description already provides the return details, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The schema has no description coverage (0%), but the description compensates by explaining that the metric parameter is a 'canonical name' and directs the user to explore_sba_metrics for discovery. It does not provide format examples or a list of valid names, but for a single parameter this is sufficient guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full definition for a single SBA 7(a) metric by canonical name'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling explore_sba_metrics which discovers metrics. It also lists concrete return fields (display name, category, unit, etc.) making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly provides usage context: 'Use explore_sba_metrics to discover canonical names.' This tells the agent how to obtain the required parameter and implies this tool is for fetching details after discovery. It clearly differentiates from the discovery workflow.

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