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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail that no annotation conveys: the URL is never invoked, which matters for a tool whose subject is an HTTP action.

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?

One dense sentence with the key scope and return content front-loaded, followed by a short safety clause. No filler or repetition.

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 does the work of indicating what comes back (fields, URL, method), and the single required parameter is explained. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior when toolId doesn't exist.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter and the description names it ('by toolId'), making its role as the identifier obvious. It adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond that, so this is adequate rather than rich.

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: retrieves the saved configuration of one HTTP/API action on a Convocore agent, identified by toolId. It even previews the returned content (fields, URL, method), which clearly separates it from list_agent_tools and get_agent.

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?

The clause 'Read-only: it never calls the URL' implicitly steers the agent away from test_agent_tool / test_agent_tool_request when it only wants to inspect a config. It gives clear context but doesn't name the alternative sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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