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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context beyond that: the per-operation_id granularity, the reuse-instead-of-recall behavior, and the guarantee that field names vary per operation and cannot be guessed.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the workflow constraint and the reuse rule, then the return note. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each sentence carries distinct operational guidance rather than filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and it still names what comes back ('JSON schema describing the operation's inputs'). For a one-parameter, read-only lookup whose role is positional in a workflow, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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% and the single operation_id parameter already documents its format and source ('Exact Markifact operation ID returned by find_operations'). The description reinforces the same idea but adds no format or syntax detail the schema lacks, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get the input schema ... for an operation') and enumerates what is returned (required fields, defaults, constraints). It clearly separates itself from find_operations and run_operation by framing itself as the schema-lookup step between them.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('required step between find_operations and run_operation/run_write_operation'), a per-operation_id call cadence, a caching exclusion ('reuse it instead of calling again'), and a downstream rule limiting input_data to schema fields. No ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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