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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine value by explaining that the returned text is interpreted differently per macro type, but it omits what happens when the ID is invalid or what fields accompany the command text.

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 core action front-loaded and the type-dependent payload clarification packed into a subordinate clause. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description covers the essential question of what content comes back and why it differs by type. No output schema exists, so fuller return-value detail (field names, not-found behavior) would still help, keeping it below 5.

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% and the single macroId property is documented including its provenance ('from macro-list'). The description adds no format or lookup detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get one macro) and clarifies what the payload contains — chat command text for type chat, JavaScript source for type script. That distinguishes it from macro-list, macro-create, and macro-execute by implication, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 schema's 'from macro-list' note implies the lookup workflow, but the description itself gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance, and never tells the agent to use macro-execute instead when the goal is running the macro rather than reading it.

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