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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It still adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: this returns provenance data and propeller-specific attributes, and it explicitly states that blade station geometry is never returned, which head-offs a predictable follow-up query.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then two short supporting sentences, one of which covers return payload and one the hard exclusion. No filler; 'with provenance' is the only mildly opaque phrase and it is clarified by the sentence that follows.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description usefully characterizes the propeller row contents and the deliberate omission of blade station geometry. For a single-parameter read tool, an agent has nearly everything needed to call it correctly.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: it discloses the id format and prefix ('comp_…'). That is concrete value the schema does not provide, though it stops short of saying whether a bare or prefixed id is accepted.

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 and resource ('Read one database row by its id') and scopes it to a single entity, which implicitly separates it from the sibling search_components list operation. It does not name any sibling tool explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 requirement of an id ('by its id') implies when to reach for this tool versus a search, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative is named. The note about blade station geometry being withheld is a boundary on output rather than on usage.

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