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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses important behavior: accepted id formats, the fact that only active setups work (64 active setups, 45 Fan + 19 Tick), error cases, and the critical caveat that 'Catalog direction is not the trade side.' This adds substantial context an agent needs.

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 description is compact yet dense: it covers purpose, input semantics, output contents, usage guidance, and a key caveat in just three sentences. No filler or repetition; every sentence 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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates exactly what the returned data includes. Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the rich behavioral context provided, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches this by listing concrete accepted formats ('#19', '19', 'T1', 't1') and clarifying that ids outside the active library error. This goes beyond the schema's simple example.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full public playbook for ONE active setup by id', clearly distinguishing this from listing or matching tools. It also names the returned components (catalog card plus logic/entry/confirmation/etc.), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description states a clear use case: 'Use it to verify a candidate against the chart before citing it.' It also explains error behavior for invalid ids. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or point to a specific alternative like maatsii_list_setups for browsing all setups.

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