Get Tool Help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a bit of behavioral context by mentioning 'exact contract' and 'bounded workflow overview', but it does not disclose potential error conditions or response formats. This is acceptable given the annotations, so a 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently presents both modes without redundancy. Every phrase adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 description is adequate but relies heavily on the schema for constraints (e.g., oneOf logic, enum values, mutual exclusivity). It does not mention optional parameters or edge cases, but given the rich schema and annotations, it covers the essential purpose. A 3 reflects that it is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 each parameter already has a thorough description (e.g., 'Do not combine with tool_name'). The tool description adds no extra parameter detail beyond the schema, so 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 tool's purpose: describe a tool (with its exact contract) or return a workflow overview for a supported topic. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the two modes are distinct. This differentiates it from sibling data-fetching tools like get_data and get_catalog.

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 when to use each mode by stating the two options, and the schema enforces mutual exclusivity. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for actual data retrieval). Still, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer correct usage.

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