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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on what is returned, whether the id is a UUID or numeric, or what happens on a missing record.

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 content is a duplicated sentence plus an opaque operation ID. Nothing is front-loaded usefully because there is no substantive information to front-load.

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 single-record fetch with no output schema and a nested free-form `query` parameter, the description should at least characterize the returned resource and the meaning of `query`. Neither is present.

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% for both parameters. The `id` path segment is inferable from the ':id' template, but the `query` object (free-form additionalProperties) is completely unexplained in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 restates the title and endpoint path verbatim ('GET /api/counterparties/:id' twice) without saying what a counterparty record contains or how this differs from close siblings like get_counterparties_4b4919172201a6bf5f32236f or get_counterparties_by_id_contacts. It is effectively a tautology of the name.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, no exclusions. The only routing hint is that 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which points at a schema-lookup tool rather than explaining when this tool should be chosen over the many other counterparty getters.

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