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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: public URIs require no auth while account and display URIs require a session, and it summarizes the return shape. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, with the core operation front-loaded, followed by usage direction, auth note, and return summary. Every sentence carries information without padding.

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 fetch tool with an output schema and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers when to use it, authentication requirements, and what is returned. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description mostly restates the uri examples already in the schema. It adds only mild context that account/display URIs need a session, linking session_request_id to authenticated calls.

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?

The description clearly identifies a specific verb ('Fetches'), a resource class ('agentView resource'), and the URI scheme with concrete examples. It does not explicitly distinguish this generic fetch from sibling get_* tools, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

States when to use it ('Use after search or with a known URI') and gives auth preconditions by URI category. It does not name excluded alternatives or say when to prefer the sibling get_* tools, stopping short of a 5.

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