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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that courses are returned in display order, which is a useful behavior beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose errors, absence behavior, or any other operational traits. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One short sentence is front-loaded with the core action ('Fetches one collection') and immediately adds the most decision-relevant detail ('including its courses in display order'). There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary context.

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 simple get-by-id tool with one required parameter, full schema coverage, a comprehensive annotation set, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. Return content is already captured by the output schema, so the description need not enumerate response fields.

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 100%, and the id parameter is already well documented as 'The collection id, as returned by list_collections or create_collection.' The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('one collection'), and adds the distinctive detail that courses are included 'in display order.' This clearly distinguishes get_collection from list_collections (all collections) and from create/update/delete mutations without needing to inspect 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 singular 'one collection' plus the id parameter makes the intended use clear: fetching a specific existing collection when its id is known. It does not explicitly say 'use list_collections to browse all collections,' but the contrast is strongly implied by the sibling names and the description's singular scope.

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