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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the includeUsage flag is only valid at spec level and is intended for pre-deletion checks, plus it clarifies the prerequisite 'Requires project context'. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the level/usage nuances, then the alternative tool and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant phrasing.

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-only get tool with 5 parameters, the description covers the return contents (schema details and rowVersion), the level semantics, the includeUsage behavior, the alternative for org level, and the project context requirement. No critical calling information is missing, even without an output schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that specId is required for level 'spec' and that includeUsage only applies at spec level, tying parameters to usage conditions that the schema alone doesn't fully convey.

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 states 'Get one header component with its schema details and rowVersion' – a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling get_org_header_component by explicitly scoping levels to 'spec' or 'project', so an agent can differentiate them without opening the schema.

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 description gives explicit usage context: 'Use this for spec or project level; for the organization level use get_org_header_component.' It also advises when to set includeUsage ('do that before deleting one'), providing a clear when-to-use and an alternative tool. No ambiguity remains.

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