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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it returns JSON with specific fields (name, username, version, readme, parameters), and implies a read-only GET operation. No contradictions.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: brief intro, explicit WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, RETURNS, and WORKFLOW sections. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, good annotations), the description is complete. It explains the return value and workflow, compensating for the lack of output schema.

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% for the single parameter 'worker_id', with clear description including example and source. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Get detail for a CoreClaw worker', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_worker, list_workers, etc., by noting it is used before running a worker to inspect version, README, and parameters.

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?

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections. When to use: before running a worker to inspect details. When not to use: avoid public search for private data and internal APIs. Also provides follow-up workflow with get_worker_input_schema and run_worker.

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