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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information by stating the tool also returns permissions and that detail level is controlled by a two-mode flag. It says nothing about error behavior for invalid names or about size/cost of fullschema reads.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the parameter-selection hint. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 an output schema present, return format need not be explained, and the description covers the non-obvious interaction between the two optional parameters. What is missing is a definition of the required 'name' argument and any note on failure modes for an unknown tool.

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 67%, with include_definitions and schema_path already documented in the schema. The description adds real meaning by tying the two together: false gives an overview, schema_path selects individual /$defs definitions or fields. The required 'name' parameter remains unaddressed in both description and schema text, which keeps this below a 5.

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 names a specific verb and resource: read exact schemas and permissions (for a named tool, implied by the tool name and the required 'name' parameter). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic getters in the sibling list, but it never explicitly states that 'name' identifies a tool, nor does it differentiate from similarly-named siblings like get_design_operation_schema or get_request_schema.

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?

Guidance is provided for mode selection within the tool: include_definitions=false yields an overview while schema_path drills into /$defs entries or fields. However, there is no statement of when to call this tool versus the other schema-fetching siblings, and no exclusion or prerequisite (for example, what happens if the named tool is unknown).

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