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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds alias-acceptance behavior and the shape of returned content, which is useful because there is no output schema. It still omits not-found or error behavior.

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 sentences, tightly front-loaded with the return content, followed by a brief relevant alias note. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only detail lookup with no output schema, the description must explain what comes back; it does list the primary return fields and alias behavior. It is moderately complete but omits error/not-found behavior and explicit sibling routing.

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 parameter baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by noting that also_called aliases are accepted for name, while api_token remains fully documented in the schema.

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 that this returns one convention and enumerates the payload: dimensions and meanings, trunk fields, listing count, and store examples. It implicitly contrasts with list_conventions via 'One convention', though it never names the sibling or uses an explicit retrieval verb.

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 only usage guidance is that also_called aliases work for the name argument. It does not say when to choose get_convention over list_conventions, nor does it state prerequisites or failure cases, leaving selection context implied.

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