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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the return contents (principle, framework mapping, evidence sources, etc.), which matters since no output schema exists.

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 tightly packed sentences with the action and scope front-loaded, followed by the return payload. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers both the input format and the returned fields. It does not mention not-found/error behavior, but with annotations covering the safety profile and a single simple parameter, this is nearly 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 description must compensate for the single 'id' parameter. The embedded example ('OH::geoffrey-pattern') demonstrates the expected namespace-prefixed format, which is meaningful for correct invocation, though it doesn't explain length or validation limits.

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 ('Retrieve'), resource ('operational heuristic'), and scope ('a single ... by id'), with a concrete id example ('OH::geoffrey-pattern'). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_operational_heuristics, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 'by id' scoping implies this is the lookup counterpart to list_operational_heuristics, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or prerequisites are given. Usage is only implied rather than stated.

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