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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cost ('Free'), maps it to an HTTP shape ('Same shape as GET /v1/finds/{find_id}'), and enumerates failure modes (404 find_not_found, 422 for a non-UUID id). It does not cover auth/permission behavior or the fact that api_key may be required.

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 resource definition, then provenance, then errors, with no filler sentences. The first clause is dense and slightly jargon-heavy ('long or packaging run', 'the opening or the package analysis'), which costs a little clarity for a general reader.

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 need not be described, and the description correctly omits them. It supplies cost, error behavior, and provenance, leaving only auth semantics unaddressed, which is adequate for a two-parameter read 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers find_id thoroughly, giving its provenance and, via the 422 note, its UUID format constraint. api_key is left entirely unexplained, keeping this from 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (find), then defines what a find is: 'One result of a long or packaging run with every field'. It names the sibling tools that produce the id (get_run, list_kept_finds), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening a 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?

Explains where find_id originates ('from a run's finds (get_run) or from list_kept_finds'), which tells the agent when this tool becomes callable. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with list_finds or other retrieval siblings, so it is clear context but not full when/when-not routing.

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