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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context by enumerating the returned detail (price, turnaround, authority, audience), which matters because there is no output schema. It still says nothing about error behavior for an unknown id, so it is not a full behavioral account.

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 sentence with the scope and returned fields front-loaded; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 read-only single-record fetch with full annotation coverage and a fully documented parameter, the description is nearly sufficient. Since no output schema exists, listing the returned fields carries real weight, though the list is illustrative rather than a complete account of the response.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ("Outlet id returned by search_outlets"). The description's "by its id (from a search result)" adds provenance meaning but no format or syntax beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 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?

"Full detail for a single outlet by its id" gives a specific verb+resource+scope, and the parenthetical "(from a search result)" plus the listed fields (price, turnaround, authority, audience) separate it from the sibling search_outlets, which returns search results rather than one record.

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 phrasing "by its id (from a search result)" establishes the intended workflow of retrieving a record produced by search_outlets, so the agent knows when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming search_outlets explicitly or stating exclusions (e.g., when a search result already contains enough detail).

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