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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context: sections returned in order, text returned in an editable form, and an error on missing or inaccessible scripts. Return format detail is helpful but still thin on ordering guarantees or section shape.

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?

Three short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the error condition last. Every sentence contributes, though the middle sentence is slightly awkwardly phrased relative to how crisp the rest is.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so (sections in order, editable text). It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps like whether ordering is guaranteed across all section types.

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 single parameter is already documented as an id sourced from search or listing. The description adds no syntax, format, or validity detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Fetch one script') plus scope ('all of its sections in order'), which cleanly separates it from list-scripts and the get-* family. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

The line about editing the returned text and sending the revision 'back the same way' signals the retrieve-then-update workflow, and the error condition for unreachable/absent scripts is stated. It stops short of naming the sibling (update-script) explicitly, so the alternative is implied rather than spelled out.

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