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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond that: the default no-id call returns all 31 features. It says nothing, however, about how 'lang' affects behavior or about result ordering/size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the primary mode is stated first and the fallback mode second.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with rich annotations, this covers the main usage path. The gaps are the entirely undocumented 'lang' parameter and the absence of any hint about what a returned feature contains, which matters somewhat since there is no output schema.

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 50%, and the description carries the key semantic that 'id' is optional and its absence switches the tool into list mode, which the schema's required=[] alone implies but does not explain. The 'lang' parameter is never mentioned in the description and has no schema description beyond its enum, leaving half the parameters un-annotated anywhere.

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 ('One Veliane feature by id') and even quantifies the collection ('all 31 features'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, but the get_veliane_* siblings target distinct resources, so confusion risk is low.

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?

Explicitly defines the two calling modes: supply an id for a single feature, omit it to get the full set. That is clear when-to-use context, though it names no alternatives (e.g. search_veliane_help) and states no exclusions or prerequisites.

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