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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail beyond that — that include expands the response to the parent project chain — but says nothing about behavior when the id does not resolve or about response shape.

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 short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and no filler; the optional parameter is mentioned second, matching its lower priority.

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 read-only single-fetch tool with a fully described two-parameter schema and annotations covering safety, the description is essentially complete; there is no output schema to explain. Only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 tag_id and the include whitelist are already documented in the schema. The description restates include's intent ('load the parent project chain'), adding only mild extra meaning over the schema's own wording, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single tag') plus the lookup key ('by its numeric id'), which cleanly separates it from list-tags-tool without needing to open either schema. An agent can identify the operation at a glance.

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 phrasing ('pass include to load the parent project chain'), which gives a reason to use the optional parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-list guidance or prerequisite/permission context. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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