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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds the list of returned fields, but with an output schema known to exist, this is not a significant behavioral disclosure. No additional traits like error handling or data sourcing are mentioned.

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 two short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second concisely notes the returned fields, making it appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description covers everything needed for basic selection. It explains what resource is accessed and what data is returned, with no missing critical context for a read-only lookup.

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 schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter, including type (number) and an example (9 for Death Star). The description's 'numeric ID' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Star Wars starship') and clarifies the lookup key ('numeric ID'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling get_film and get_planet tools, which target 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 you have a numeric starship ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_film or get_planet. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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