Get Scheme Details

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' correctly conveys a read-only retrieval, and it discloses the shape of the payload (eligibility, benefits, deadlines, application links), but it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown ID or any auth/rate constraints.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the returned-field enumeration trailing as useful detail. No filler, though the field list slightly pads an otherwise tight sentence.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials and usefully previews the return content. It could add a not-found/error note, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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% and the sole parameter is thoroughly documented with concrete example IDs. The description's 'by its unique ID' merely restates the schema, adding no format or constraint detail, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('complete details of a specific Indian government scheme'), and a precise selector ('by its unique ID'), plus an enumeration of the returned content. It implicitly separates itself from search_schemes by being an ID-based lookup, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The by-ID framing implies it is a follow-up to search_schemes (which would supply the ID), but the agent is left to infer that relationship rather than being told, and no prerequisite or alternative is stated.

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