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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious mechanism: this tool exists because the tool list abbreviates schemas, and it resolves one field at a time. It doesn't say what a failure looks like for an unknown tool/field.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return value and followed by the reason and the call instructions. Nothing redundant for a meta-tool of this scope.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does cover what is returned (the exact JSON Schema for the field). The only gap is error behavior for unknown tool/field names, which is minor for an idempotent read-only resolver.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions with examples (validate_composition, tracks). The description's 'pass that tool and field' adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: return the exact JSON Schema for an abbreviated body field. No sibling tool does anything similar, and the description makes the abbreviation-expansion role unmistakable.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition — an abbreviated field names this tool in its description — and says what to pass (that tool and field). It doesn't state what to do if the field is not actually abbreviated or what happens on a wrong tool/field pair, but the positive routing rule is explicit.

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