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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation: the stale-key resolution behavior (stale keys resolve to the current provider, returned key is canonical) and the exact fields in the response. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior without requiring a call.

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?

The description is moderately sized and front-loaded with the purpose ('Get an access point'). It is dense but each sentence adds value: the first sentence states the main function, the second enumerates return fields, and the third clarifies an important nuance about stale keys. It could be slightly more structured, but it avoids unnecessary 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?

Given that there is no output schema and only one parameter with full schema coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns and how it behaves. It covers the response structure (display name, verified flag, member seats, roster size, composition), the canonical-key guarantee, and the stale-key resolution. This is sufficiently complete for a read-only single-entity fetch operation.

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?

The input schema already has full coverage for the 'key' parameter with a clear description and examples. The tool description adds extra semantic meaning by explaining that stale keys are resolved to the canonical current key, and by clarifying that the returned key is always the canonical one. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/format info, enhancing the agent's understanding of what the parameter represents.

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 clearly states the purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('access point'). It then lists the specific fields returned, distinguishing it from list_access_points and other sibling tools by focusing on single-entity details. Although there is a get_provider sibling, the description's detail about member seats, roster size, and composition makes the purpose distinct.

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_access_points or get_provider. It mentions the stale-key behavior, which is a usage consideration, but it does not say 'use this when' or point to alternatives. Thus, the usage context is largely implied by the name and sibling context rather than stated.

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