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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful constraint — that only *published* assessments are retrievable — but says nothing about behavior for unknown/unpublished ids or whether any auth/scope applies.

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 verb and scope, with no wasted text. The second sentence ("Fits working from its priorities and recommendations") is awkwardly phrased and slightly cryptic, which costs a point.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool with complete annotations, so the bar is modest. However, with no output schema the description should at least sketch what an assessment contains or note not-found behavior; instead it only gestures at "priorities and recommendations."

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the schema only supplies type string and format uuid. The description adds the meaning "identifies one published assessment" but no format, source, or error semantics for an invalid id, so it only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Returns one published Strategic Assessment by id") and clarifies what the resource actually is ("the deliverable written for the business after its live session"). The singular "one ... by id" implicitly separates it from list_strategic_assessments, though that sibling is never named.

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?

"Fits working from its priorities and recommendations" hints at the downstream use case but never states when to call this versus list_strategic_assessments or how to obtain the required id. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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