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 does add non-obvious failure semantics ('Unavailable tools return permission-safe access diagnostics, not evidence of missing data') and scoping to 'authorised' tools, but it never describes the shape of a successful response or what the schema payload contains.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it fetches, when to use it, and what happens on failure. Nothing is repeated and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 does explain the payload at a high level (full schema and description) and covers the error path, which is adequate for a simple two-parameter read tool. It stops short of saying how the returned schema should then be used with raq_call_tool, a minor gap given the sibling set.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema, including the account_id prerequisite-check meaning. The description restates rather than extends that meaning, 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the full schema and description for one authorised Raq.com MCP tool') and implicitly separates it from sibling retrieval tools like raq_search_tools and raq_call_tool by framing it as a single-tool schema lookup.

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?

It states an explicit precondition ('Use this only after choosing a likely tool from instructions, raq_search_tools, or a direct tool name supplied by the user'), naming the alternative that precedes it, and adds a distinct secondary use for account_id (prerequisite checking).

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