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 return shape, no pagination behavior, no note that the result is scoped to a single counterparty. It does not contradict the annotations, it simply contributes no behavioral context.

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 same endpoint path is duplicated verbatim, and the operation ID string adds no decision-relevant information for an agent. The one useful pointer (describe_operation for request schemas) is buried after the redundant content.

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?

A read tool with a nested free-form query object and no output schema needs at least a statement of what is returned (a list of notices) and how the query object is used. Neither is present, and the notices-vs-notifications distinction from a sibling tool is left unresolved.

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 the two parameters, so the description carries the burden and fails: it never explains that 'id' is a counterparty identifier or what the free-form 'query' object is for (filters, pagination, expansion). Only the endpoint path hints that :id refers to a counterparty, which is marginal compensation 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 consists of the raw endpoint path repeated verbatim, which restates the tool name rather than explaining what the tool does in natural language. An agent can infer it fetches notices for a counterparty from the URL structure, but nothing distinguishes it from the near-identical sibling get_counterparties_by_id_notifications, which it never mentions.

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 conditions, and no named alternative. The only additional sentence points at describe_operation for schemas, which is a procedural hint rather than guidance on selecting this tool over get_counterparties_by_id, get_counterparties_by_id_contacts, or get_counterparties_by_id_notifications.

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