jd_get_guidance_line

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the embed_shapes conditional-return behavior, but that same behavior is already documented in the schema's embed_shapes param, so the net new behavioral insight is modest.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the conditional return note and the ID-sourcing guidance. Three short sentences with little waste, though the ID-sourcing line is somewhat repetitive with the schema.

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 an output schema present, the return values need not be explained, and the description covers the embed_shapes toggle and full param-sourcing chain. Adequate for a single-record read tool with full schema coverage.

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 restates the source of each ID, which duplicates the schema param descriptions rather than adding format or syntax detail beyond them.

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 states a specific verb (get) and resource (one guidance line on a field), with 'one' implicitly contrasting with the jd_list_guidance_lines sibling. It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it never names the list sibling explicitly to sharpen the distinction.

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?

It provides a concrete prerequisite chain, telling the agent exactly where to obtain org_id (jd_list_organizations), field_id (jd_list_fields) and guidance_line_id (jd_list_guidance_lines). It stops short of stating when to prefer this over jd_list_guidance_lines or any exclusions.

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