Get profile segment details

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add operational context. It adds that the response contains the segment definition/conditions and that contacts are intentionally out of scope, but it does not describe response structure, errors, or pagination.

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 sentences: the first states the operation and output, the second routes to the alternative endpoint. No filler or repetition of annotation values.

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 two-UUID read call, the description is largely sufficient: it names the output, scopes it to a profile, and distinguishes contacts retrieval. The lack of an output schema and exact sibling names are minor gaps, but annotations and simple params keep the tool callable without more.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the schema descriptions ('Profile uuid parameter', 'Segment uuid parameter') are minimal. The tool description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond implying profileUuid scopes the segment.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single segment of a profile'), and specifies content ('conditions that define it'). It also signals a boundary by directing contact retrieval to the segment-contacts endpoint, but it does not name sibling tools explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 second sentence gives an explicit when-not: if the goal is retrieving contacts that match the conditions, use the segment contacts endpoint instead. This is useful routing context, though it does not mention other related siblings such as reach_getSegmentDetailsV1 or the list-segments tools.

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