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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety needs no repeating. The description adds real context beyond them: organisation variables require an admin-scoped token, and a missing name is an error rather than an empty result.

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?

Three tight sentences plus a return-shape clause, with purpose first, then scope selection, then auth and error behavior. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape itself ({name, value, createdAt, updatedAt}), covers the auth requirement for the org scope, and states failure behavior. For a single-resource getter this is complete enough to call 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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining how the parameters combine (owner+repo, owner+repo+environment, org) to select the variable scope, which the individual property descriptions do not state.

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: read one Actions variable by name. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like gluecron_list_variables, gluecron_set_variable and gluecron_delete_variable, and scope is front-loaded.

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 routing logic: owner+repo for a repository variable, owner+repo+environment for an environment variable, org for an organisation variable. It does not explicitly name the listing sibling as the alternative when the name is unknown, so there is no stated 'when not to use'.

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