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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuine domain context beyond that – the return includes parts and shared pieces, and attached pieces apply to every part – which helps interpretation. It says nothing about failure behavior when the ID does not exist.

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 action and resource, with the second sentence delivering useful domain semantics. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the lookup key and characterizes the payload. The only meaningful gap is the absence of any note on behavior for a missing or invalid style ID.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single styleId parameter, and it only says "by ID" – a restatement of the parameter name. It adds no constraint detail (the schema's integer/exclusiveMinimum 0 is the only format signal) and no indication of what a valid versus stale ID looks like.

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 ("Get a style by ID") and states the scope of what is returned ("including its parts and shared pieces"), which distinguishes it from list_styles and from the get_part/get_piece siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the resource itself is unambiguous.

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?

"By ID" implicitly signals that this is the lookup path when an identifier is already known, versus list_styles for enumeration, but that routing is left for the agent to infer. There is no statement of when not to use it or of any prerequisite such as the ID having to exist.

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