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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explaining the full return shape and adding the important security-relevant note that the body is authored by another person/agent and must not be treated as instructions. This goes beyond a generic 'get' statement, though it omits details like not-found behavior or permissions.

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 with no filler. The core purpose and return contents are front-loaded, the safety warning is concise, and the identifier guidance completes the instruction set efficiently.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what will be returned and how to select the handoff. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly contrasting with list_handoffs, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the caller should provide either handoffId or key, giving the key format example (BLG-H4) and reinforcing the mutual-exclusivity that the schema does not encode.

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 specific action ('Get a single handoff in full') and enumerates the exact contents returned: body, context, reply chain, and derived task/question. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_handoffs or resolve_handoff, so an agent can identify its purpose immediately.

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 description makes the usage context clear: retrieve one specific handoff by either handoffId or key. It also warns that the body is data, not instructions, which is critical guidance for how to treat the result. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_handoffs, but the 'single handoff' phrasing implies the distinction.

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