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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the response contents (description, responsibilities, qualifications, compensation, how to apply) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention error behavior or authentication requirements.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the specific details returned. No fluff or repetition.

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 simple get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the response content, which compensates for the missing output schema, but it could benefit from explicit usage guidance (e.g., when to use vs. list_gigs) and a mention of its read-only nature.

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 input schema fully documents gigId with an example (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond 'by ID', which is already obvious from the parameter name and schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it retrieves full details for a specific gig by ID and enumerates the fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_gigs (listing), search_gigs (searching), and apply_to_gig (applying).

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 phrase 'by ID' clearly implies the tool is used when you already have a specific gig ID, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as listing all gigs via list_gigs.

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