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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no behavior on an unknown name (error vs. empty), no note on the optional `fields` projection being an optimization, no caching or freshness context. Output schema existing excuses return-value detail but not the miss-path behavior.

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 with no filler, and the required-parameter call-out is front-loaded. The brevity is efficient but drifts toward under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

With a full schema, an output schema and rich annotations, most of the burden is carried structurally, so the description is close to sufficient. What's missing is disambiguation from similarly named siblings and any statement of what happens when a name isn't found — both material for correct tool selection.

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 baseline is 3. The example "get.plumbing" usefully confirms the accepted format, but it only illustrates the one required parameter already documented in the schema; the `fields` projection receives no mention in the description.

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?

"One catalog name, by name or id" conveys a single-record fetch, but the resource is described only as a "catalog name," which is ambiguous next to the sibling ud_get_name. There is no explicit verb and nothing marks it apart from ud_get_name or ud_get_name_registry, so an agent can't be fully certain which record type this returns.

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 no when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative, despite several plausibly overlapping siblings (ud_get_name, ud_get_name_registry, ud_list_domains). The only actionable instruction is "Pass `nameOrId`," which is invocation syntax rather than selection guidance.

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