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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose genuine behavior: the source-resolution order (private-store state when configured, otherwise the published snapshot) and a failure-mode hint ('unknown or unavailable means partial, not refused'). It omits auth requirements and what a 'partial' result actually contains, so it adds context but is not complete.

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 tight sentences that front-load the resolution rule, with no filler. However, the second sentence is dense and cryptic ('partial, not refused'), which costs readability without adding proportionate clarity.

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 no-output-schema, no-annotation getter, the description covers the unusual resolution and partial-result semantics reasonably well. It still leaves gaps around what a need is, the parameter format, and the returned content, so it is adequate but not 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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It only echoes 'need-id' without explaining the 'need-[0-9a-f]{16}' format or meaning, adding no real semantics beyond the parameter name.

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 name and the phrase 'Follow need-id' imply retrieval of a need by its identifier, and the description adds resolution-scope detail (private-store vs published snapshot). However, it never plainly states that it fetches/returns a need record, so the core purpose must be inferred from the name.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to any sibling tool (e.g., submit_need or explain_limits). The only conditional information concerns data-source resolution, not tool selection, so an agent gets no help choosing this over alternatives.

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