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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that (no not-found or error behavior), so it sits at the baseline rather than contributing extra context.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded; there is no filler to trim.

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?

With an output schema documenting the return value and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits the required project scoping and any note on not-found behavior, leaving gaps for a two-parameter lookup tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both UUIDs documented in the schema itself, so baseline 3 applies. The description's 'by UUID' aligns with the stakeholder_id parameter but omits the equally required project_id scoping.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (stakeholder) plus the identifier used to retrieve it. It distinguishes itself from stakeholders_list implicitly via 'by UUID,' though it never names the sibling directly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as stakeholders_list for enumeration or stakeholders_get_many for batch retrieval. The 'by UUID' phrasing only weakly implies the single-lookup case.

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