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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful domain context about the batch-scoped reference format, but discloses nothing about the return shape or whether a missing work item errors versus returns empty.

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, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence earns its place by explaining the reference format, though it introduces terminology that doesn't match the schema.

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 one-parameter read tool with a readOnlyHint and no output schema, this is close to adequate. But the 'reference' vs 'id' naming mismatch leaves ambiguity about exactly what value to pass, which is the one thing this tool's description most needed to resolve.

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 single 'id' parameter is already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds genuine format meaning ('1-2 is work 2 of batch 1'), but confusingly names the concept 'reference' while the schema calls the parameter 'id', leaving the relationship between the two unstated.

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 ('Get one work item'), which is clear against list_works and get_batch siblings. However it never explicitly differentiates itself from those siblings or notes it returns a single item by id.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite many siblings (get_batch, list_batches, search_works) that could retrieve overlapping data. The only context is about the reference format, not about when this tool is the right choice.

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