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

Annotations already cover the operational profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the burden. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing what the response contains and clarifying the domain semantics of 'variables' as dataset bindings that resolve ${...} references. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads purpose and return contents, and the second earns its place by disambiguating the potentially confusing term 'variables.' Nothing extraneous is present.

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 simple read-only getter with two required string parameters, the description covers the essential facts an agent needs: what is fetched, what the response includes, and what 'variables' means. The residual gaps — sibling differentiation and parameter format details — are accounted for in other dimensions, and annotations carry the operational traits.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation, but it says nothing about projectId or scriptId beyond what the parameter names imply. The names are self-explanatory, yet the description supplies no format, origin, or relationship guidance for either parameter.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Get a single script') and itemizes the return contents: 'full command list and variables, plus a dashboard link.' The qualifier 'single' distinguishes it from list_scripts, and the content details separate it from sibling getters like get_script_revision and get_script_asset.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named despite lookalike siblings such as get_script_revision and get_script_asset. The description states what the tool does but leaves the agent to infer when it is the right choice.

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