get_discussion_topic_details

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'detailed information,' which is vague but not misleading. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it maximally concise and efficiently structured.

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, read-only get-by-ID tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context. The term 'detailed information' is somewhat vague, but given the tool's simplicity and the availability of sibling tools for broader views, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke appropriately.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (topic_id and course_identifier), so the description adds no additional meaning. The phrase 'specific discussion topic' reinforces the need for an identifier but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific discussion topic'), making its purpose evident. It implicitly distinguishes from list_discussion_topics by focusing on a single topic, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_discussion_entry_details or get_discussion_with_replies, which might overlap semantically.

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 implies usage when a user needs details for a specific topic (given a topic_id), which is a natural use case. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for replies or full discussion threads) or alternatives like get_discussion_with_replies. This is adequate but not instructive.

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