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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses some return content (item status, responsible, result, links, app_url), but does not state that the operation is read-only, what auth is required, or how missing/invalid ids behave.

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?

The description is one short sentence with no filler, but it is an unstructured field list and does not front-load the tool's action. Its brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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 detail-getter with no annotations and no output schema, the description should state what it retrieves and what id means. It only lists some response fields, which is not enough for reliable invocation.

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?

The only parameter is a required string id, and the description never explains whether it is a diligence id, item id, or UUID. With 0% schema description coverage, this leaves the parameter materially under-specified.

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?

The description is a noun-phrase inventory of returned fields rather than a verb+resource statement; it never says it retrieves a diligence by id. An agent can infer the purpose from the tool name, but the description alone does not clearly distinguish it from siblings like list_diligences or get_item.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. Nothing says to use this for a single diligence detail versus list_diligences for collections or get_item for an individual item.

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