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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: the return format is markdown, and figures carry a source plus the date they were read, with an instruction to preserve both on reuse. Error/empty-result behavior is not covered.

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: the mode split comes first, the return format second, the citation caveat last. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant information 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 correctly carries the return-format burden by naming markdown and the per-figure source/date metadata, and the schema enumerates valid ids. Missing only edge-case behavior for queries that match nothing or ids that do not exist.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the full id list and the fields a query matches against, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a modest re-framing of 'query' as 'find the page that answers it' and repeats an id example already present in the schema.

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 (read/lookup) and resource (pages on shooteratlas.com), and cleanly separates the two operating modes: id to read a page, query to find one. No siblings exist, so no differentiation is required, and an agent knows exactly what the tool returns (markdown).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use 'id' when you want a known page as markdown, use 'query' when you need the page that answers a question. It gives clear selection criteria but no exclusions or fallback behavior (e.g. what to do when a query matches nothing).

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