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 covered. The description adds value beyond that by telling the agent what the returned detail contains (endpoints and cloud info). It does not mention failure behavior, e.g. what happens when the node_id is unknown.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no filler. It is lean to the point of being slightly terse, but nothing is wasted.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter getter, an output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations carry the read-only safety profile. The description is therefore nearly sufficient, with only minor gaps around error conditions or whether endpoint data is always present.

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?

The single node_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including an example format (ND-123-456-789), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which matches the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb (get) and resource (node) and scopes the result ('full details including endpoints and cloud info'), which separates it informally from list_nodes and the create/update/delete siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: needing full detail on one specific node (identified by node_id) is the obvious trigger versus list_nodes. The description never states when to choose this over list_nodes or get_organization, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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