get_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the read-only nature and the full field set returned, which is genuine behavioral value. It omits what happens when the key is unknown (error vs. empty result) and any auth or rate considerations, leaving a meaningful gap for a lookup tool.

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, zero filler, with the identifying scope and return contents front-loaded before the read-only note. 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields plus the read-only guarantee covers nearly everything an agent needs. The only gap is failure behavior for a missing key.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds real meaning beyond it by explaining that the key is the slug appearing in the entry's Anclum URL. That is more than the schema's bare 'entry key/slug'.

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 and resource ('Get one catalogue entry by its key') and immediately enumerates the record contents, which cleanly separates it from search_tools (query-based) and list_categories (category enumeration). An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the requirement of an exact key suggests it is the follow-up to a search, but the description never names search_tools as the way to obtain a key or states when not to use it. The 'slug used in its Anclum URL' hint helps the agent source the key but is not an explicit when-to-use rule.

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