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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — 'without changing records or spending credits' — which matters in a toolset where enrichment siblings consume credits, so an agent learns this call is free.

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?

Two substantive sentences that are front-loaded and earn their place. The leading 'Get drive.' fragment merely restates the annotation title and is dead weight.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the four payload sections. For a one-parameter read tool that is nearly sufficient; only the relationship to the list endpoint and the ID source are 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?

The description adds nothing about the single `path.id` parameter, and the reported schema description coverage is 0%. However, the nested schema itself documents the id with examples (`drive_session_501`, `drive_route_7`), so an agent can still call it correctly — a minimum-viable 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a recorded drive') and enumerates the returned payload (route, events, visits, prospect links), which goes beyond the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling dealmachine_get_driving_drives list endpoint, leaving the singular-vs-collection distinction to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetching a single drive presupposes an ID, but the description never says to use dealmachine_get_driving_drives first to obtain one, nor does it state any exclusions or preconditions. No explicit when-to-use guidance is present.

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