ghost_get_newsletter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not require special permissions, or how it handles missing/invalid IDs. It also omits any mention of return structure or potential errors, which would help an agent understand the tool's behavior.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and object, then adds the qualifier 'by ID'. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, earning high marks for efficiency.

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 required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), so the description provides a baseline level of completeness. However, it could be more complete by clarifying what 'configuration and stats' entails (e.g., whether the response includes demographic data, open rates, etc.) and explicitly confirming it is a read operation, given the absence of annotations.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a description 'Newsletter ID'. The description repeats 'by ID' without adding new meaning, such as format expectations (e.g., UUID format) or any constraints. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not surpass it.

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'), resource ('newsletter'), and scope ('by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghost_list_newsletters (listing all) and ghost_update_newsletter (modifying). The mention of 'detailed configuration and stats' adds specificity beyond a generic retrieve.

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 for retrieving a single newsletter by ID, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to prefer this over ghost_list_newsletters or ghost_get_site_info. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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