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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior: exact identifier required, default output flags, selective output patterns, and readme fallback behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with the main action and constraint front-loaded, followed by bulleted output-parameter guidance and examples. It is somewhat long but each section earns its place and aids correct invocation.

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?

Given the nested output object and multiple boolean flags, the description covers the identifier requirement, output defaults, selective patterns, readme behavior, MCP-specific use, and example queries. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to explain return values. Nothing critical is missing.

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% with descriptions for all parameters and nested boolean properties. The description adds value beyond the schema by documenting defaults ('All fields true except mcpTools'), selective patterns, and common use cases like 'inputSchema only' and 'mcpTools for MCP Actors'.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('an Actor') with the required identifier format. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools focused on runs, datasets, and KV records, and it is not a tautology of the name.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use when querying Actor details, documentation, input requirements, or MCP tools' plus concrete example queries. It also warns against constructing plausible-looking Actor names. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the use-case framing is sufficient.

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