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 contributes the workflow constraint (use before unseen parameters) and hints at the payload's shape, but says nothing about lookup misses, whether a missing id errors or returns empty, or whether kind is needed to disambiguate.

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, front-loaded with the what and closed with the when. The enumeration of entity types is dense but every item adds discrimination value; nothing is padded.

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 only two parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description does enough: it tells the agent what fields come back for each entity type and when to call. The one substantive gap is the id/kind relationship, which the description leaves implicit.

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 50%: `kind` is documented in the schema, but `id` carries no description. The description partially compensates by naming the four kinds that populate `kind`, yet it never explains whether `id` is globally unique or scoped per kind, which is the key ambiguity for a lookup taking both.

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 ('Full detail for one catalogue entry') and then enumerates exactly what that detail covers across the four entity types (indicator params/defaults, formula signature, strategy params, drawing anchors/text/style). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling catalog_search without opening either 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?

'Call this before passing parameters you have not seen' is a concrete trigger condition that tells the agent when this tool is mandatory rather than optional. It doesn't explicitly name catalog_search as the discovery-side alternative, so the routing story is implied rather than stated.

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