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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. With no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields (roles, reasons, fallbacks, playbook, handoff guidance) is genuinely additive context, though it says nothing about behavior for an unknown or invalid id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and lookup key come first and the payload list follows. Slightly dense with domain jargon ('Martini handoff guidance') but 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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers both the lookup semantics and the returned record's composition, which is needed since no output schema exists. Only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.

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% and the schema itself supplies the id format with examples ('fast-commercial'). The description's 'by id' adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one intent-routed recommendation by id') and even enumerates what the record contains (primary server roles, reasons, fallbacks, playbook, handoff guidance). The singular 'one ... by id' implicitly separates it from list_film_recommendations, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of the top band.

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 'by id' framing implies this is the lookup used once you already have an id from list_film_recommendations, but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or names the listing sibling. Usage is left to inference.

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