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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful error behavior by stating that another account's id is not found, though "This does not change the handoff" largely repeats the non-destructive annotation.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the primary purpose and return fields. The final sentence is slightly redundant with the readOnly/destructive annotations, but overall the structure is efficient.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough: it names the returned fields, status values, account scoping, and not-found behavior. No output schema is needed given the field enumeration.

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%, so the id parameter is already documented as a handoff id in hnd_... format. The description still adds semantic value by clarifying that the id is scoped to this account and that foreign-account ids will not be found.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Read one handoff on this account." It then names the exact fields returned (type, title, status, source, file paths) and the possible status values, making the tool clearly distinguishable from sibling write/share/delegate handoff tools.

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 description implies this is the tool for reading a single handoff, but it does not explicitly route the agent against alternatives such as get_handoff_result or wait_for_handoff. The account-scoping note is useful context, but there is no direct when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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