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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds useful context that the data is real observed lab runs (server/client/crash outcomes) rather than theoretical compatibility, but it says nothing about result size, pagination, or coverage limits.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the essential scoping fact is front-loaded. The first sentence is information-dense but stays readable; nothing is repeated or padding.

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 enumerate return fields, and it covers the input-key nuance. What is missing is any routing guidance relative to the sibling tools, which is the only real gap for a simple two-parameter read.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema itself only says 'Mod id, e.g. sodium.' The description adds genuine meaning beyond that by warning that the key is the mod id, not the display name, which prevents a common mis-invocation. The mc parameter receives no additional treatment in the description.

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 names the resource concretely: empirical lab run records for a Minecraft mod, including the versions and environments where it ran or crashed. It also states the lookup key ('By mod id ... not display name'), which tells an agent what this tool returns. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the siblings diagnose_crash or mod_pair.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus diagnose_crash or mod_pair, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only invocation guidance is the id-format note, which is parameter semantics rather than usage routing.

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