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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: amounts are bare numbers with no currency, requiring a separate lookup. That is genuine behavioral disclosure the annotations do not provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the domain definition and the currency caveat. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return content, which it does by naming cost, service life, and in-service date, plus the currency caveat. It is close to complete for a simple read tool, though it could note null/empty behavior or other returned fields.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Betterment ID', uuid format), the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 ('Get a single') and resource ('betterment'), and further grounds the domain term by defining it as 'one capital improvement on one asset' with its cost, service life, and in-service date. It does not name the sibling list_asset_betterments, but 'single ... by ID' clearly contrasts with a list operation.

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 implied by the by-ID fetch pattern, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs list_asset_betterments or how to obtain the ID. It does supply one actionable instruction: call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating a currency, which is a helpful precondition.

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