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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is set. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: environment variables (isEnv) come back masked, which an agent would otherwise misinterpret as the real value. It stops short of saying what happens if the variableId doesn't exist.

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 short sentences with the identity of the tool front-loaded and the masking caveat second. Nothing is wasted, though the masking note could be phrased as 'returns the value, masked for env vars' for slightly tighter front-loading.

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?

One required param, no output schema, and annotations that fully declare safety — so the description only needs to state the lookup and any surprising return behavior, which it does with the isEnv masking. Missing only not-found behavior, a minor gap for a simple getter.

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 schema provides no documentation for variableId; the description only says the lookup is keyed by it, with no format hints (UUID, name, etc.). It ties the parameter to a single-entity lookup but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (get) and resource (one Convocore agent variable) keyed by variableId, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with list_agent_variables, but the singular 'one' and the ID key make the distinction readable.

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?

Retrieval-by-ID usage is implied by 'by variableId', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_agent_variables (enumeration) or get_agent (which presumably returns variables inline). No prerequisites or failure conditions are stated.

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