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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by exposing that the tool returns 'current run state' and 'pending human approval', revealing stateful workflow info beyond what annotations state. No contradictions 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?

The description is a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. The core action ('Return one assessment') is front-loaded, and each listed detail earns its place by clarifying the return payload.

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 compensates by summarizing the main return components. The required parameters are clear from the schema, and the tool's scope is well covered. It omits edge cases like not-found behavior, but that is minor for a simple read-only getter.

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 50%, with workspaceSlug described but assessmentId not. The tool description adds no parameter-level explanation, though 'assessmentId' is fairly self-explanatory alongside 'one assessment'. It does not worsen the gap but also does not compensate for the missing schema description.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Return', with a clear resource ('one assessment') and enumerates the distinct elements returned (verified asset, current run state, pending human approval). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_assessments (plural collection) and get_asset/get_finding (different resources).

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 implies usage when a single assessment's status/detail is needed, especially given the assessmentId parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_assessments or other assessment-related tools. Usage is inferred rather than directly guided.

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