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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, no return shape, no note on what the query object controls.

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?

It is short, but the opening sentence is duplicated word-for-word and the operation ID is noise for an agent; the one useful pointer comes buried at the end. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 no output schema, an opaque nested query parameter, and zero description coverage of parameters, an agent cannot determine what to pass or what comes back. The definition is not sufficient to invoke the tool correctly without falling back to describe_operation.

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?

There are 2 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and a nested free-form 'query' object with additionalProperties allowed. The description provides no information about what query keys are accepted or what 'params' does, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap entirely.

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 is a restatement of the endpoint path ('GET /api/addendums') duplicated verbatim, which is essentially tautological with the tool name get_addendums. It implies listing addendums but gives no scope, filters, or differentiation from the many sibling list endpoints (e.g., get_addendums_by_id).

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 actionable sentence points to describe_operation for native request schemas, which is a hint about tooling rather than guidance on when to call this tool versus get_addendums_by_id or the other read siblings. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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