get_access_bookmark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only implies a read-only operation via the word 'Get.' It says nothing about authentication scope, behavior for invalid or nonexistent IDs, rate limits, or what 'details' actually includes. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with zero 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 one short sentence with the verb front-loaded and no wasted words. However, it is concise to the point of under-specification, adding almost no information beyond the tool name, so it does not earn a top score for structure.

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 tool is structurally simple — two required string IDs, no nested objects, no output schema — and the schema fully documents its inputs, so an agent can invoke it mechanically. Clear gaps remain: no output shape, no indication that bookmark_id is typically obtained from list_access_bookmarks, and no differentiation from the list variant. This is minimum viable for a simple getter.

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% — both required parameters (account_id, bookmark_id) are already documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('Get') and a resource ('Access bookmark'), so an agent can tell it performs a retrieval. However, it nearly restates the tool name verbatim — the only added meaning is the word 'details,' which implies the return value. It does not distinguish this from sibling getters like get_access_tag or from list_access_bookmarks, so it is a clear but minimally informative purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to call this tool versus list_access_bookmarks or any other sibling. There is no mention of how to obtain a bookmark_id (e.g., listing bookmarks first) or any context about Access bookmarks. Any usage signal is left entirely to the get-vs-list naming convention.

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