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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is fully covered. The phrase 'exactly as stored' adds a genuine behavioral hint that the definition is returned raw rather than resolved or normalized, but nothing about pagination, errors, or missing-id behavior is given.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though 'exactly as stored' is the only clause carrying extra signal.

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 idempotent read with annotations covering safety and a fully described parameter, the description is adequate. However it stops short of describing the returned shape, which matters since there is no output schema.

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% and the single suite_id parameter is fully documented with its allowed sources (rig.suite.list or rig.suite.upsert). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('one suite') and adds what is returned ('its current definition'), which distinguishes it from rig.suite.list and rig.suite.upsert by scope. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (rig.suite.list, rig.suite.upsert), and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb 'get' plus the single-id schema.

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