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, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that - no note on what the response contains, whether an unknown id errors or returns null, or any auth/scope requirements.

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 first sentence is duplicated verbatim ('GET /api/addendums/:id. GET /api/addendums/:id.') and the remaining text is an operation id plus a redirect, so half the content is wasted 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 tool with 0% schema description coverage, a nested required object, and no output schema, the description should explain the id path parameter and the response shape. Instead it defers everything to describe_operation, leaving the agent with a route path and nothing else.

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% and there are two parameters (a free-form 'query' object and a nested required 'params.id'), yet the description explains neither. The pointer to describe_operation is a mitigation but does not tell the agent what 'id' means or what the query object accepts.

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 identifies the resource (addendums) and the verb (GET by :id), which does distinguish it from the sibling list tool get_addendums_2271fab93d4539362c4ae3b6. However, it only restates the route path from the title with no plain-language statement of what an addendum is or what the caller gets back.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the list endpoint or any other sibling. The only hint is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which points at another tool for schema discovery but gives no selection criteria.

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