get_experiment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the text. The description adds nothing beyond the name: no statement about behavior when the ID is unknown, no auth/scope prerequisites, no data-freshness or rate-limit context for an openWorldHint 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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the resource being fetched is front-loaded immediately after the verb. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 ID lookup with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the essentials are present. But with no output schema, the description never says what 'details' comprises, nor how it differs from the related list_experiments and get_experiment_results tools an agent will be choosing between.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents experimentId and marks it required. The description only implies that the ID selects one specific experiment, adding no format, source, or validity information beyond the schema.

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 ('Get details for') and resource ('a specific A/B test experiment'), and the phrase 'A/B test' disambiguates the kind of experiment. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_experiments (enumeration) and get_experiment_results (metrics), though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 word 'specific' implies you already have an identifier, so the reader can infer it is a by-ID lookup rather than a search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no pointer to list_experiments for discovering an ID or get_experiment_results for outcome data.

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