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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful return-shape detail beyond that, notably that only 'the first three decisions' are included, warning the agent that output is partial. It does not cover pagination, errors, or whether lang affects results.

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: capability and return contents first, usage routing second. Slightly padded by the vague domain phrase 'nice to have kit', but nothing is wasted overall.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the fields an agent will receive, including the truncation to three decisions. The lang parameter remains unexplained, which is the main gap for a 2-parameter tool.

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%: id is documented with an example ('deck-16x9'), but lang is undocumented in both schema and description. The description only restates the 'by id' lookup and adds nothing about the lang parameter or how it affects output.

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 ('Get the details of one ... kit by id') and enumerates what is returned (purpose, first three decisions, requirements, fixes). The 'one kit by id' scoping clearly separates it from list_kits and search_kits.

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 says 'Use after search_kits to explain a kit to the user,' giving a clear workflow position and intent. It does not state when not to use it or what to do instead for bulk retrieval, but the sequencing guidance is concrete.

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