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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that the tool is read-only. The description adds that it resolves IDs into JSON-text with human-readable text and that it is a compatibility alias. This is useful but does not disclose potential error behaviour or constraints 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose: 'Compatibility alias that resolves...' It is concise with no filler words and efficiently communicates the core 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 simple one-parameter tool with readOnly annotation and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and input format. However, it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools and does not specify the full range of accepted ID types. It is adequate but leaves gaps in decision-making.

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?

The schema only defines 'id' as a string with no description, making schema coverage 0%. The description compensates by providing two example ID formats (brand:stripe, prompt:best-crm), giving the agent concrete understanding of expected input. This is meaningful semantic addition for a single-parameter tool.

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 identifies the tool as a compatibility alias that resolves fetch IDs into JSON-text results, with concrete examples of ID formats (brand:stripe, prompt:best-crm). It is specific about what it does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like parse_get_brand or search.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative sibling tools. It states it is a 'compatibility alias' but does not explain when to prefer it or mention any exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear contextual guidance.

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