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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on error behavior for unknown ids, no caching or freshness context, no mention of what a 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is appropriate for a simple getter, though the terseness leaves the noted gaps rather than trading length for clarity.

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 read tool with no output schema, the safety annotations do most of the work, but the description should still say where the id originates and roughly what a record holds. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 0%, so the single parameter has no documented meaning anywhere. The description only says 'by id' and never clarifies that the id comes from the ojk_illegals listing, nor does it address the numeric, minimum-1 constraint.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a single illegal investment product') plus the lookup key ('by id'), which clearly separates it from the list-style sibling ojk_illegals. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Get a single ... by id' implies usage as the detail-fetch counterpart to a listing, but the description never says to call ojk_illegals first or when a single fetch is preferable to the list. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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