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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Behavior: read_only' is largely redundant. However, the description adds genuinely useful operational context not in annotations: workspace_id and user_id are injected from request headers, so the caller need not supply them. That auth/implicit-parameter disclosure is the value-add here.

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?

Front-loaded with clear labels ('Use when:', 'Behavior:') and no wasted sentences. Minor blemish: the redundant 'Use when: Use when' stutter, but otherwise tight and well-structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The definition covers id sourcing and the read-only nature well; the remaining gap is the unexplained optionality of 'id', which leaves a small ambiguity for an agent.

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 0% and the single 'id' param is only typed as string with a null default, so the description must compensate. It does add provenance (the id comes from create_crm_specification's response), which is meaningful, but it never states the id's format or addresses why the param is optional despite being a get-by-id lookup.

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 ('Fetch a previously-registered CRM specification by its own id') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_crm_specification by scoping to already-registered records. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 'Use when' clause gives an explicit precondition (you already hold a CrmSpecification id from create_crm_specification's response) and the goal (confirm connection_source or check is_deleted). This routes the agent precisely and names the sibling that produces the required id.

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