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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value by disclosing the two-part response shape and that every claim in the internal part is either resolved to sources (title, publisher, URL, date read, location, evidence level) or explicitly marked as source-less. It does not mention permission requirements or pagination, but for a single-record read those are minor.

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 dense sentences that front-load the primary return value before describing the internal part. The parenthetical enumerations are long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what fields to expect.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and largely discharges it by naming the user-facing fields and the internal part's source-resolution structure. Minor gaps remain (it doesn't restate the language-fallback or default sections behavior), but those are covered by the schema.

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 schema already documents id, lang, and sections (including defaults and the untranslated-text fallback). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond loosely referencing the 'internal part' that the sections parameter selects, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource ('returns the user-facing recommendation for one pattern') and enumerates the payload (workflow, sourced effects, needs, risks, a first step). 'For one pattern' implicitly separates it from the sibling adoption_find_patterns, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 rather than stated: fetching a single pattern's detail, and the note that the internal part 'answers questions such as what the advice is based on' hints at a use case. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to adoption_find_patterns for discovery.

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