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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what 'full details' contains, no auth requirements, and no rate-limit or pagination behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key noun phrase ('full details for a specific comp by ID') front-loaded and no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than bloated.

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 whose annotations carry the safety profile and with no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It still fails to say what fields 'full details' returns, which is the main open question an agent would have.

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 schema fully documents id, context, llm_model, and conversation_id. The description only echoes the id parameter ('by ID') and adds no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Get'), resource ('full details'), and scope ('for a specific comp by ID'), which cleanly separates it from search_comps (listing) and update_comp (mutation). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the scope phrase alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention that an ID must first be obtained (e.g., from search_comps), and no statement of when this is preferable to analyze_comps or the bulk endpoints. Usage is only implied by the 'by ID' phrasing.

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