get_detection_detail

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context about the return contents (weather, confidence, audio URL). It does not mention potential edge cases such as missing detections or whether the audio URL requires further authentication, but this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action, resource, and ID source; the second sentence gives a clear usage trigger. Every piece of information 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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what the tool does, what it returns, where the ID comes from, and when to use it. It could be slightly more explicit about the response shape or error behavior, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 single 'id' parameter is well-described in the schema as a numeric detection ID returned by get_recent_detections or search_detections. The description reinforces this same information but does not add significant new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('comprehensive details for a single detection'), and the key identifier (numeric ID). It also lists the specific content returned (weather conditions, confidence score, audio clip URL), making the tool's purpose both concrete and distinguishable from sibling tools focused on audio clips, summaries, and list searches.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: 'Use after an interesting detection ID has been identified.' It also specifies how to obtain the ID, from get_recent_detections or search_detections. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the contextual guidance is strong enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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