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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so "Read-only" adds little. However, the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: partner-only actions require X-Partner-Key or Authorization: Bearer, and pricing is free during beta with future pricing/notice to be announced.

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 three compact sentences, front-loaded with the return contents. The pricing and auth sentences each carry useful, non-redundant information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains what will be returned, the auth requirements for partner-only actions, and the current pricing status. An agent has enough information to select and call 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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already says action_id comes from list_actions. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("one action") and enumerates exactly what the result contains: steps, required inputs, actor type, and price. This clearly distinguishes it from list_actions, which is referenced as the discovery tool.

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?

It implies the workflow by stating the action_id comes from list_actions and that this returns detail for one action, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state exclusions, but the sibling relationship is unambiguous.

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