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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it returns the same shape as get_object and that extension-registered schemes are reachable via the resources/read transport surface.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and format, then gives usage guidance and a note on extension URIs. It is efficient overall, though the extension-URI sentence is somewhat niche and dense.

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 a fully described schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how to use it versus the sibling, and what shape to expect. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 already documents the uri format with examples. The description adds only the parsing equivalence to get_object (collection + id), which is marginal beyond the schema's own details.

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: resolve a tcms:// URI to its underlying object. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_object by explaining the equivalence and the different input shape.

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 explicit routing guidance: use get_resource when a URI has been surfaced, use get_object directly when you have a separate collection + id pair. It also mentions extension-registered URIs are handled through resources/read.

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