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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral value: it enumerates the returned schema contents, states the call is free, and specifies the 404 semantics including the ownership/API-key scoping rule. It does not discuss auth failures or rate limits beyond that.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb, resource and endpoint, followed by return contents and the 404 caveat. No filler; 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 read-one-by-id tool with an output schema (so return values need no elaboration), full annotation coverage, and 100% parameter documentation, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it fetches, how it is keyed, that it is free, and the failure mode.

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%, so both parameters (api_key, schema_id) are already fully documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description restates schema_id's role and the 404/ownership implication but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Specific verb (Get) plus resource (one Claix schema) and the keying parameter (schema_id), reinforced by the concrete endpoint GET /api/get-schema/{schema_id}. An agent can trivially distinguish this from claix.schemas.list, create, update, and delete.

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?

Usage is implied (fetch a single known schema by id) and the 404-when-not-owned condition gives useful context, but the description never states when to prefer this over claix.schemas.list — that routing hint ('llama a claix.schemas.list primero si no lo conoces') lives in the schema, not the description. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided in the description text.

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