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 adds valuable sequencing context (this precedes invoke_tool) and audience framing ("Advanced"), but says nothing about output shape or whether the schema is complete/normalized — minor given an output schema exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage tier and the core action, followed by the exclusion rule. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema needs little more than sequencing and routing guidance, which this provides. The only real gap is not telling the agent how to discover a valid operationId, which would matter for first-time callers.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. "for one operationId" implies the parameter identifies a single operation, but it never says where operationIds come from (e.g., search_provider_operations) or what format they take, leaving the agent to infer how to obtain a valid value.

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+resource: returns the JSON schema for a single operationId, and positions it relative to invoke_tool. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like invoke_tool (which executes) and run_playbook/solve_task (which handle higher-level jobs).

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?

Explicit when-to-use (before invoke_tool, for advanced use) and explicit when-not (skip for ship/SEO/security jobs), naming the two alternatives to use instead. This is the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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