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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: the status lifecycle (queued, in_progress, succeeded, failed, canceled) and the fact that heavy payload parts only materialize once succeeded and are opt-in. It does not mention auth or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and result content before the paging caveat. The status enumeration is somewhat list-heavy but every clause carries selection-relevant information.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the returned sections and their state-dependent availability, plus paging behavior. Missing only operational context like auth or size limits.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, include and breakdown_id in detail; baseline is 3. The description's 'Long parts are opt-in through include; the table pages with offset and limit' reinforces intent but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 breakdown') and enumerates exactly what it returns: status, shot table, overview, summary, statistics and structure. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like list_breakdowns (plural listing) and start_breakdown (creation).

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?

Usage is implied by the 'once succeeded' framing and the breakdown_id note pointing back to start_breakdown/list_breakdowns, but the description never says when to choose this over list_breakdowns or estimate_breakdown, nor any prerequisites. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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