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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get details for one existing bundle ID' reasonably implies a non-mutating read, and it hints at the payload ('platform and capabilities'), but it says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or what happens when the id is unknown.

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, no filler. The identity and scope come first, followed by the workflow guidance, so the important routing information is front-loaded.

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 simple read with no output schema, an agent still needs to know what 'details' includes beyond platform and capabilities, and how to supply the identifier. The description is directionally sufficient but leaves the return shape and the lookup input underspecified.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the only schema property is a generic notification_message unrelated to the operation, while the description claims lookup 'by its ASC resource id' — a parameter the schema does not expose. That mismatch actively misleads an agent about what it must supply.

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 details for one existing bundle ID') and pins the lookup key to an ASC resource id, which separates it from list_bundle_ids and create_bundle_id. It does not explicitly contrast with other single-resource getters, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow position: call after list_bundle_ids, and before create_app, to confirm platform and capabilities. That is actionable sequencing rather than a generic 'use when needed', though it names no exclusions or failure conditions.

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