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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds value by disclosing what the call returns for each kind (parameters/defaults, signature, strategy parameters), which helps the agent predict the outcome. It does not cover error behavior for unknown ids, but that is a minor gap for a simple read-only lookup.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose and enumerates the kind-specific returns, and the second delivers a direct usage directive. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns per kind, and when to call it. It is nearly complete; only id provenance and unknown-entry error behavior are unaddressed, and neither is critical.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the semantic weight, and it meaningfully does so for kind: it maps each enum value to the form of detail returned. The id parameter is left as an implied catalogue-entry reference with no guidance on where valid ids come from (e.g., catalog_search), which is a partial gap.

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?

The description states a clear verb-plus-resource purpose: 'Full detail for one catalogue entry' with the detail types enumerated (indicator parameters/defaults, formula signature, strategy parameters). It is cleanly distinguishable from the sibling catalog_search, which finds entries, whereas this tool returns full detail for a single entry identified by kind and id.

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?

'Call this before passing parameters you have not seen' is explicit, actionable when-to-use guidance tied directly to downstream tool calls. It does not name alternatives like catalog_search or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a full 5, but the use condition is unambiguous.

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