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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no behavior on missing id, no return-shape or authorization context.

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?

A single six-word sentence with zero padding, and the key constraint ("by id") is front-loaded. It is as tight as possible, though the clipped phrasing borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 trivial single-record read with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema, the description could have said what a desk_surface contains or how a missing id is handled, and it does not.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("The desk_surface id."), so the schema already documents it. The description's "by id" adds no format, source, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ("Read one desk_surface") and constrains scope with "by id", which distinguishes it from the sibling desk_surface_list. No explicit naming of the sibling alternatives, but the singular/one-record framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single record when you have its id. There is no explicit when-to-use vs desk_surface_list or desk_surface_update, and no statement of prerequisites or error conditions.

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