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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing the return payload — headers, bodies, failure diagnostics and a replayable cURL — which the annotations cannot convey. Pagination or size limits for large bodies are not mentioned.

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, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by the input prerequisite. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and where the input comes from, which is the essential information. It leaves edge cases (invalid id, recording not found, oversized bodies) unaddressed but those are secondary here.

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% and both parameters document their own formats ('with or without the #', accepted URL shapes), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds the provenance of `id` (which tools produce it), which is a modest increment — baseline 3.

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 plus the exact payload ('headers, bodies, why it failed, and a cURL command to replay it'), so the agent knows what comes back. The relationship to get_network is implied by 'take the #id from get_network' (list vs. single detail), but the description never states the contrast explicitly.

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?

'Take the #id from get_network, get_moment or open_recording' gives a concrete prerequisite and routes the agent to the producing tools. There is no explicit when-not or alternative-detail-tool clause, so it stops short of full guidance.

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