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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ownership constraint (only the user's own algorithms are retrievable), which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss auth requirements or error behavior.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the routing hints. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present and complete annotations, the description need not explain return values. For a single-parameter read tool, the stated purpose, ownership scope, and sibling routing are sufficient to invoke it correctly.

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 the single algo_id parameter is already documented as coming from list_my_algos. The description restates the same sourcing hint without adding format, type, or validation detail, so this is the baseline 3 when the schema carries the load.

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 (Retrieve) plus resource (one saved algorithm) with scope qualifiers (owned by the user, by ID). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_linked_algo, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite route ("Use list_my_algos first when the ID is unknown") and names the alternative tool for a different scenario ("use get_linked_algo for an instance-specific runtime copy"). This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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