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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the return contents (status, briefing, execution log), which strongly implies a read-only retrieval, but it never explicitly states that the call has no side effects, nor does it mention error behavior for a missing or unauthorized wake.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource scoping front-loaded and a colon-delimited enumeration of return contents. Nothing is wasted.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description conveys the key return contents. However, it omits how to obtain wake_id and what happens on invalid IDs, which matters given the complete absence of annotations and schema descriptions.

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 0% and the single parameter wake_id has no description or format in the schema. The description does not explain where wake_id comes from (presumably hib_list_wakes) or what form it takes, leaving the only parameter largely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a singular resource ('one of your wakes'), which distinguishes it from the sibling hib_list_wakes. It also enumerates the payload (status, briefing, execution log), so the agent knows what it retrieves. It stops short of explicitly naming the list alternative, so not 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus hib_list_wakes, hib_execute_wake, or hib_resolve_wake, and no prerequisites such as needing a valid wake_id. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'one of your wakes'.

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