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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: only 'public active' formations are retrievable, and the id may be raw or carry a 'formation:' prefix, which affects how the call must be formed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, key, and accepted id formats; no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the essentials are present: scope, lookup key, and id format. The only minor gap is not stating the behavior when the id is missing or the formation is inactive, though 'active' implies that case exists.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema only says 'Public formation id.', so baseline is 3. The description earns a point above baseline by documenting the two accepted id forms (raw id or formation:<id>), which the schema does not convey.

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 (fetch), resource (WeJob formation), and cardinality/scope (one, public, active), and pins the lookup key (public id). The singular 'one ... by public id' cleanly separates it from the sibling wejob_search_formations without needing to name it.

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 tells the agent when this tool applies: when you already hold an id, and it explicitly states the id originates from search/fetch, which routes the agent to the right siblings. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named alternative for discovering ids.

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