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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations by naming the fields returned and explicitly excluding provider metadata and the message body, which prevents the agent from assuming a full payload.

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 compact sentences with no filler: the read verb and scope lead, followed by the return/exclusion clause. The phrase 'in the selected product' is unexplained jargon, a minor deduction, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work by listing the returned field families and the two notable omissions. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented single parameter, the definition is nearly complete; it only omits behavior for an unknown or missing action_id.

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 action_id parameter already documents UUID format and an example value, so the description adds no parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('Read one action') and enumerates the fields returned, which is well beyond a tautology. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'get_schedule' or 'get_campaign', leaving the agent to infer the singular-vs-collection distinction from the name.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus 'get_schedule' or 'get_campaign', nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only implicit cue is that a single action is retrieved by id, which the agent must infer.

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