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

Even with readOnlyHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral insight beyond the annotation: it is metadata-only, the named finding is always included when visible, other findings are a relevance selection, and truncation is surfaced via fields 'truncated' and 'truncated_note.' No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 long, but the length is largely earned: it enumerates many distinct return components and provides workflow and truncation guidance. The main structural weakness is that the longest sentence is a dense list without line breaks, which makes it harder to scan quickly, though it remains front-loaded and purposeful.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return payload, and it does so thoroughly: signal, repair steps, objects/PII, join paths, process/step, findings, metrics, historical context, and trust warnings. It also covers the truncation edge case and the metadata boundary, so an agent unfamiliar with the system can 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?

The single parameter is fully described in the schema as 'The id of a signal from list_signals,' and the description reinforces that connection by telling the agent to start from list_signals. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: it returns the full task context for a single signal in one callches. It enumerates the exact content categories, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_object or get_metric, and grounds it in a workflow starting from list_signals.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Start from list_signals, then call this for the signal you mean to work on.' It also states the boundary of the tool, warning that it is metadata and that actual rows must be fetched 'using the routes,' which tells the agent when not to rely on this call as the final data source.

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