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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. 'One archetype in full' conveys that this is a read operation returning complete data, which is useful. It does not mention error behavior, authentication, or whether the response will be flat or nested, but for a simple get-by-id tool the core behavior is reasonably clear.

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 six words and gets straight to the point: it names the object, the cardinality, the completeness, and the lookup key. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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 getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: 'in full' hints at the return shape. It lacks explicit guidance on error cases or how this differs from list_archetypes, but given the low complexity, the missing context is minor.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single 'id' parameter with an example ('architect, visionary'), and description coverage is 100%. The description only reinforces 'by id' without adding format, naming rules, or additional semantics, so it meets the baseline but adds little beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb ('get'), resource ('archetype'), scope ('one'), and mode ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_archetypes and get_pillar_map, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 phrase 'by id' implies this tool is for fetching a single known archetype, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus list_archetypes or get_pillar_map, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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