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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the read-only retrieval, such as mention of return format or potential side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not enrich the behavioral understanding beyond what is already declared.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core action. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it omits usage context, but that is a content issue rather than a structural one; the structure itself is efficient.

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 retrieval tool with one required parameter and two optional ones, the description combined with the schema provides enough to call the tool correctly. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings, and does not describe the response format (though no output schema exists). Given the low complexity, it is minimally complete but leaves key usage decisions to inference.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The tool description reinforces the development_id parameter by saying 'by its ID', but does not add new meaning to any parameters. The schema already explains the detail enum and end_timestamp semantics, so the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 'Retrieve a specific development by its ID' clearly states the action (retrieve), the resource (development), and the key identifier (ID). It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like search_developments or retrieve_entity, so it misses the 'distinguishes from siblings' criterion for a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_developments or retrieve_event_developments. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions under which another tool would be more appropriate. This is a clear gap in usage guidance.

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