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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that this is a read, that it requires staff read permission and view_association, and that it returns the current revision. It says nothing about behavior on a missing/non-positive ID, or what happens with stale revisions, which are the main uncertainties for a read-by-ID call.

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, zero filler, with the read operation and its selector front-loaded before the permission requirements. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key selector constraint, and authorization needs. Only return shape and failure behavior are unaddressed, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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%, so the description must supply the meaning. It does add real semantics for association_id ('positive ID'), constraining it beyond the bare integer type, but 'token' is never explained and error behavior for invalid IDs is unspecified.

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 DB association') plus the selector ('by positive ID') and the returned state ('with current revision'). It implicitly separates itself from online_associations_list (plural) and online_association_upsert, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Staff read and actual view_association required' gives the caller's preconditions for use, which is clear context an agent can act on. It stops short of naming when to prefer online_associations_list or online_association_upsert instead, so no explicit exclusion is provided.

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