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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by stating it 'Returns all metadata including content, destination, design, scan limits, and timestamps,' giving insight into the response contents. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation via 'Get,' but does not detail potential errors or auth requirements. The return-value disclosure is strong enough for a read tool.

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 three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the third describes return contents. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the core action. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It mentions specific metadata fields (destination, design, scan limits, timestamps) that help the agent anticipate the response. It does not discuss error handling or permissions, but these are not critical for a read tool and are not required by the output schema absence.

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 description for the 'id' parameter already explains how to obtain it ('Obtain this from quality_qr_list or quality_qr_create responses'), which is clear and thorough. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get full details of a specific QR code by its ID.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('QR code'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like quality_qr_list (which lists all) and quality_qr_update (which modifies) by focusing on inspecting a single QR code's configuration, destination, design, and status.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this when the user wants to inspect a particular QR code's configuration, check its destination URL, view its design settings, or see its current status.' This clearly states when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is sufficient for an agent to choose this over listing or updating.

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