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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds value by disclosing that the response includes provider sources and connection requirements, which is beyond the schema. It does not describe error handling or edge cases, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 a single, tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the key qualifier ('by its stable ID') and the response details. Every word contributes; there is no redundancy or filler.

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, no output schema) and the annotations covering safety, the description is adequately complete. It explains what the tool does and what is included in the result. It does not mention any prerequisites or error conditions, but for a straightforward get operation, this is acceptable.

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 schema provides only the type and length constraints for 'id' with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the id is a 'stable ID' for a listing, giving it semantic meaning. It does not elaborate on how to obtain a stable ID, but the context of a 'get by ID' is clear. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema.

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('one Detextit listing'), and the method ('by its stable ID'). It also specifies the scope of the response ('including provider sources and connection requirements'), which distinguishes it from a search that would return multiple results. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you have a stable ID and need a single listing. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention the alternative (search_capabilities) or state when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative routing given, so it falls short of a 5 but is still clear enough for an agent to infer the right scenario.

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