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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it enumerates the meaningful return fields and explains that `usedBy` is 'every record placing it, i.e. everything an edit changes'. It doesn't cover pagination or error behavior, but this is rich detail for a read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the return-field breakdown, then a rules line. Dense but every clause carries information; only the skill-doc pointer sits slightly apart from the main flow.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are already structured, yet the description still frames the key fields and their edit implications. Combined with the contract-doc pointer, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 0% and the single `patternId` parameter is never explained in the description text (format, where to source it). The parameter is a trivial positive integer, so the gap is minor, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema description.

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 and resource ('Get one global block (synced pattern) in full') and resolves the domain jargon by equating 'synced pattern' with 'global block'. This clearly distinguishes it from list-synced-patterns and save-synced-pattern siblings.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Read it before changing the pattern' and the rule to consult the synced-pattern-contract skill doc before the first call. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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