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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: amounts are returned as bare numbers with no currency, and get_organization_settings must be consulted for currency_code.

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, zero filler. The scope and returned fields are front-loaded, and the currency caveat is placed as a trailing actionable instruction.

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 and only one parameter, the description covers what an agent needs: what a betterment is, which fields come back, and the currency-unit caveat with the tool to resolve it. Nothing material is missing.

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 100% for the single id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description only adds 'by ID', which does not extend the schema's UUID semantics; 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 (get a single betterment by ID) and defines the domain term by explaining a betterment is 'one capital improvement on one asset'. It also enumerates the salient returned fields (cost, service life, in-service date), letting an agent distinguish it from list_asset_betterments.

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?

The 'single betterment by ID' framing implicitly routes the agent away from list_asset_betterments for singular lookups, and it explicitly tells the agent to call get_organization_settings before stating a currency. No explicit when-not-to-use clause, but the context is clear.

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