Get procedure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return content (torques, part numbers, source pages), which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about failure behavior when an id/name is not found, or whether ambiguous name matches return one result or many.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, and the return-value summary is front-loaded before the sibling pointer. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it will get back and how to source valid ids, which is the essential information. Only the miss/ambiguity behavior is left unstated.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents 'Procedure id or words from its title'. The description restates that free-text names are acceptable but adds no syntax, matching rules, or format guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('step-by-step maintenance procedure') and enumerates the payload contents (torques, part numbers, source pages). It is clearly distinguishable from list_procedures, which supplies the ids.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_procedures to obtain ids, and notes that a free-text name also works as input. There is no statement of when not to use it or what happens when a name matches multiple procedures, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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