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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds that the payload is a 'raw' (unprocessed) record and that Vibenate never executes provider commands or operations, which is a useful scope boundary, but nothing about response shape or limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the parameter provenance. The trailing non-execution disclaimer is compact and earns a place as a safety boundary, though the parenthetical makes the first sentence slightly dense.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich read-only annotations and no output schema, the description says enough to call it, but 'raw record' is the only hint about return content and the path_id format is unstated. Adequate, not complete.

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% (path_id has a bare string type), so the description must carry semantics. It does identify the parameter's origin via resolve_task's detail_url, but gives no format, validation, or example value, leaving the agent to infer what a valid path_id looks like.

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: fetch the raw record for one path_id. The parenthetical ties path_id to resolve_task's detail_url, which pins down what the resource is. Slightly ambiguous what a 'path' contains, but distinguishable from siblings like get_path_history.

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?

Tells the agent where path_id comes from (the detail_url target returned by resolve_task) and redirects to inspect_site view=guide for instructions, giving a clear alternative for a related need. No explicit when-not-to-use against get_path_history, which keeps it below 5.

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