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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result contains the full description and qualifications, but says nothing about error/not-found behavior or visibility restrictions, so it adds only modest context beyond annotations.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the identifier warning follows immediately.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, this covers the essentials: what it returns and how to supply the ID. The only minor gap is that it does not clarify behavior when the opening is not found or inaccessible.

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 0% and the single parameter opening_id has no schema description, so the description carries the full burden. It explains exactly where opening_id comes from and explicitly warns against using a follow-opening row ID, which is the main semantic pitfall for this parameter.

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 ('Read an indexed opening') and even names what the response includes (full description and qualifications). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list/get tools, but the 'indexed opening' scope is clear enough to distinguish it from tools like following.openings.list.

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?

Provides a concrete sourcing rule for the identifier ('Use opening.id from Search or Following, not a follow-opening row ID'), which is genuinely useful guidance. However, it never says when to choose this tool over related siblings or when it is unnecessary, so usage guidance is implied rather than complete.

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