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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a small behavioral note (ID must come from list), but doesn't mention error handling, response details, or edge cases. Given the annotations cover the core safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, precise sentence with zero waste. The critical piece of information (ID source) is front-loaded, and there's no redundant content.

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 operation with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. It tells the agent how to obtain the ID and implies a read operation. Missing details like not-found behavior are likely in the output schema, so this is complete enough.

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 defines assistantId as a string, and the description repeats that it's an ID from the list. No additional format, validation, or semantics are provided. Since the schema is sufficient for this simple parameter, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('inbound assistant'), and the method of identification (by ID from list_inbound_assistants). This clearly distinguishes it from list and get_outbound_assistant, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly specifies that the ID must come from list_inbound_assistants, giving a clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_outbound_assistant, but the name and sibling list make that obvious. The instruction on ID provenance is a useful guideline.

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