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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful return-content context by naming the fields included, such as message, status, counts, timestamps, environment, agent context, stack frames, and breadcrumbs. It does not disclose failure behavior or permissions, but with annotations present, this is still solid.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's scope and then enumerates the returned fields. It contains no repetitive or low-value text.

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 simple one-parameter read-only lookup, the description gives enough detail about the returned error group, especially since there is no output schema. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying the relationship to get_error_context, but the essential calling context is present.

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?

There is only one parameter, errorId, and the schema fully documents it. The description does not add any format, source, or retrieval guidance for the ID beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, this is the expected baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns one error group. It also lists the key fields included. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as get_error_context or search_errors, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or which sibling tool to choose instead. Retrieving details by error ID is only implied by the tool name and required parameter.

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