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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adequately signals a read-only lookup via 'Fetch' and specifies the return content as details plus a KYMA app play link. It does not cover edge cases like missing or ambiguous titles, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two-sentence definition with no filler. The verb, resource, lookup criteria, and return value are all front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 two-optional-parameter getter with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: how to identify the frequency and what the response will include. Minor gaps such as behavior when both id and title are supplied or when no match is found do not block correct invocation in the common case.

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 already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, which establishes a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful 'or' relationship between id and title, clarifying that either identifier can be used for the lookup — a nuance not fully captured by the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a singular resource ('frequency set'), and the two exact lookup criteria ('UUID id or exact title'). This distinguishes it from search/list siblings and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core purpose.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need one frequency set and already know its UUID or exact title. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like search_frequencies or get_play_link, but the exact-match language makes the intended usage reasonably clear.

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