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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new context: amounts are bare numbers with no currency and require an auxiliary settings call. This discloses a data-interpretation trait the annotations cannot convey.

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, both earning their place: the first defines scope, the second prevents a currency-interpretation error. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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, the description usefully previews the return content (location, stock levels) and the currency caveat with a follow-up tool. It is close to complete for a simple single-entity getter, though it does not enumerate the full returned field set.

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?

Only one parameter (id, a UUID) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format or semantics beyond this, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 detailed information about a specific part') and names the content returned ('including location and stock levels'), which separates it from the list_parts and get_part_category siblings. An agent immediately knows this is the single-entity detail read.

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?

It does not spell out when to prefer this over list_parts, but it does route the agent conditionally to another tool ('call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating one'), giving clear procedural context. Context is clear though no explicit exclusions are stated.

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