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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that rules and metrics are returned, but since an output schema exists this is redundant; it does not disclose permissions, error behavior, or other traits. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero wasted words. It is as concise as a useful description can be.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is minimally sufficient for selection. However, it lacks any usage context that would help the agent choose among sibling tools, leaving a clear gap.

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 75% (three of four parameters documented), and cohort_id is self-explanatory via its UUID format/pattern. The description adds no parameter guidance, so the schema carries the meaning. Baseline 3 is correct when structured fields do most of the work.

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', resource 'cohort', and scope 'one', and names the returned content ('rules and metrics'). The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from list_cohorts, though no sibling is named 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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It does not tell the agent when to pick this over list_cohorts, compare_cohorts, or other cohort-related siblings.

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