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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value with error behavior (400 CustomerError envelope on missing id, 401/500 standard) and a back-compat note that V2 is a strict superset of V1. It does not mention the cost of the runStats rollup or any latency/size implications of fetching inlined schema and group bodies, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the V1/V2 distinction, then structured into Args, Returns, Examples, and Error Handling, with each section carrying non-redundant information. It is slightly long for a single-parameter getter, but no sentence is padding.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-shape information (inlined schema, inlined group, runStats over last N runs) and the error envelopes. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly, subject only to the runtime hint about parsing dynamic payloads defensively.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does so: it identifies id as a required string path parameter, specifies it is a MongoDB ObjectId, and tells the agent where to obtain it (scrapewise_get_scraper_list). That is meaningful compensation for an otherwise bare {"id": string} schema, though it does not give a format example or validation guidance.

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?

The description names a specific operation (get-by-id) and resource (scraper), and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling scrapewise_get_scraper by contrasting the return shape (ScraperSuperDTO vs ScraperDTO). It further characterizes V2 as a superset that inlines schema, group, and runStats, so an agent can differentiate the two without inspecting 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?

It gives explicit positive conditions ("give me everything about scraper {id}", building a UI showing scraper + group + schema) and explicit exclusions (agent only needs id+name+type → use V1; whole list → use scrapewise_get_scraper_list and call V2 on the chosen item). It also pins V2 as the preferred shape for new tooling, which resolves the V1/V2 choice directly.

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