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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), lowering the bar. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the payload it returns (signature, return type, doc comment, example), which matters since no output schema 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?

A single dense sentence with the action and the returned content front-loaded; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, the accepted identifier forms, and the language dimension. An agent has everything needed to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both 'method' (canonical id, method name, or 'resource.method') and 'language' with an explicit 7-value enum. The description's identifier examples ('events.create', 'ListAsync') merely restate what the schema says, adding no meaning beyond it, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returns the full schema of one SDK method in one language') and enumerates exactly what that schema contains (signature, parameters, return type, doc comment, example). It implicitly separates itself from listConnectSdkMethods by scoping to a single method, but never names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

Usage is implied by the lookup framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as listConnectSdkMethods, getConnectEndpointSchema, or mapConnectEndpointToSdk. The three accepted identifier formats are helpful but are lookup syntax, not routing guidance.

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