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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds one useful qualifier — that it shows the *published* baseline, implying unpublished/draft baselines are not returned — but says nothing about visibility permissions or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficiently structured, though it is terse enough that it borders on under-specified rather than merely concise.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the lone parameter is fully documented in the schema. The remaining gap is routing: an agent cannot tell from this description why it would call baseline.lineage instead of the sibling evaluation or run tools.

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 single parameter is documented at 100% schema coverage, including the accepted integer-or-canonical-decimal-string forms and its source (evaluations.list), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline for a fully covered 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?

States a clear verb ("Show") and a resource ("published baseline anchor and its evidence lineage"), so the agent knows it is a read of lineage data. However, "baseline anchor" is domain jargon and the description does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like evaluations.list, run.explain, or project.inspect, which could plausibly surface related data.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling read tools (evaluations.list, run.explain, project.inspect). No prerequisites, no scope conditions, no exclusions. The only implied usage is that you need an evaluation ID.

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