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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Advisory only: no notification is sent', which is genuinely useful side-effect information an agent cannot derive from the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted wording. The trailing scope_ref clause is relevant but slightly disconnected from the stated purpose of fetching by ID.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carrying some return-field context (scope_ref meaning, null for global) is appropriate and helpful. Given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, it is nearly complete, though the return shape is only partially described.

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 required id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax detail for id (it is a UUID per schema), and its scope_ref/scope_type explanation refers to fields not present in the input schema, so it does not enrich parameter semantics.

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 a single LoS consequence by ID'), which clearly separates it from list_los_consequences. It does not explicitly differentiate from the other get_los_* siblings (get_los_measure, get_los_measurement, get_los_proposed_target), though the resource name is distinctive enough.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the list_los_consequences alternative for retrieving multiple records. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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