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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description adds nothing on top — no note about what is returned, 404 behavior for missing ids, or permission requirements. The duplicated route string contributes no behavioral detail.

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?

The same sentence is emitted twice plus a raw operation-ID blob, so there is measurable waste and no front-loaded statement of intent. Nothing beyond the route path and the describe_operation pointer earns its place.

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, undocumented parameters, and a nested 'query' object that is unconstrained, the description should explain the id semantics and what the endpoint returns. Instead it offers only a route echo and a delegation to describe_operation, leaving the agent reliant on other tools to call this correctly.

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 the description says nothing about the two parameters, notably the required 'params.id' and the free-form 'query' object. The only compensation is the pointer to describe_operation, which offloads rather than explains parameter meaning.

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 essentially the raw HTTP route 'GET /api/standard-clauses/:id' repeated twice, which does convey a fetch-by-identifier of standard clauses, but it never states the purpose in words or distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_standard_clauses_ee2e8b85378202eeb81d76a1 (list) or get_standard_clauses_by_id_audit_... (sub-resource).

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 guidance on when to call this versus the sibling standard-clauses list/audit tools. The only actionable hint is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which is a discovery pointer rather than a when-to-use condition.

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