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 established. The description adds value by disclosing that the response includes the full config objects, and warns about the PATCH replacement behavior for the sibling tool, which is relevant context for the agent's workflow. 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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states purpose and scope; the second provides a critical caution about the update workflow. The key information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read with an output schema and read-only annotations, this description is complete. It covers purpose, ID provenance, payload expectations, and an important cross-tool warning. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 single parameter assistantId is not described in the schema (schema description coverage is 0%). The description compensates by stating it is an ID returned by list_outbound_assistants, giving the agent a precise way to obtain a valid value. This exceeds the schema's bare type declaration.

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 state a specific verb (get), a specific resource (an outbound assistant), and the source of the identifier (returned by list_outbound_assistants). It enumerates the payload contents (full voice, model, and transcriber config), which distinguishes it from list_all (which returns a collection) and update (which mutates).

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 explicitly instructs the agent to read this tool before update_outbound_assistant and explains why: voice/model/transcriber are stored as whole objects and a PATCH replaces each one entirely, so an omitted sub-field is dropped. This is clear when-to-use guidance that also routes the agent to the correct companion tool.

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