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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden: it discloses credential requirements, the claimed-workspace precondition, and a specific 403 failure mode. It also enumerates the returned fields, compensating for the absence of an output schema, though it does not mention behavior for missing experiments or rate limits.

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?

The purpose and returned fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by concise prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-field list and auth/precondition details. It is nearly complete; only minor edge-case behavior, such as what happens for a nonexistent experiment, is left unstated.

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%, so the experiment_key parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add format or meaning beyond implying that one experiment key is required, so 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 ('Read one experiment's definition') and enumerates the fields included. The scope ('one experiment') and contents clearly distinguish it from list_experiments and from get_experiment_results.

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 clear operational context: a Last Price credential and a claimed workspace are required, and a sandbox key is refused until claimed. It does not explicitly name when to choose this over get_experiment_results or list_experiments, but the prerequisites are useful and the single-experiment scope is implied.

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