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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already covered, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing the output components and the presence of reusable IDs. It doesn't mention potential response size or the effect of includeFullTranscript, but this is beyond the annotation coverage and mostly a parameter concern.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the tool's purpose and output contents, the second explains how to use the output. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers what is returned and how the output feeds into editing, which is useful. However, with no output schema and no parameter explanations, the missing includeFullTranscript semantics leave a notable gap for a tool that returns an aggregate structure.

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%, so the description must document parameters. It never explains includeFullTranscript, and only indirectly hints at transcript excerpts. utId is self-explanatory, but the boolean parameter's behavior is left completely ambiguous.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns everything about one UT' and enumerates the exact content (scenario, quantitative results, sessions with notes and transcript excerpts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_uts, get_session, and get_quantitative_report.

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?

It provides clear context that this is the one-UT deep retrieval tool and explicitly says to pass the returned scenario/use-case/task IDs to add_task/update_task when editing a draft. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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