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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description rightly does not repeat it. The description's one addition is the word "legal", which signals this returns OJK-licensed entries rather than the illegal-app data, but it says nothing about error behavior for a missing id or what the returned record contains.

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 zero filler, which is the right shape for a trivial get-by-id tool. It is terse to the point of being under-specified, but no wording is wasted.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive lookup with full annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what is fetched, and that it is fetched by id. Only marginal gaps remain, chiefly whether a non-existent id errors or returns empty.

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 only one parameter and its schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the weight; "by id" does confirm the identifier is a single-app key, matching the required numeric id in the schema. It adds no further meaning such as whether the id comes from ojk_apps results or what range is valid beyond the schema's minimum of 1.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Get") with a specific resource ("a single legal investment app") and a scope qualifier ("by id"). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the plural sibling ojk_apps and from ojk_illegal_get, even though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 word "single" combined with "by id" implies the pattern of listing via ojk_apps first and then fetching a detail record, but the description never states when to use this tool versus the list siblings or what happens with an invalid id. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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