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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the useful "current domain" scoping constraint, but says nothing about behavior when the UUID does not exist, cross-domain access, or the shape of the result.

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 no filler; the verb, key, and scope all appear immediately. Nothing extraneous and nothing padded.

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 two-parameter read there is no output schema, so the description is the only place to learn what comes back and how misses are signalled — neither is covered. Adequate to call correctly, 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including examples like 'customer', 'project', 'tenant' for object_type. The description only echoes the UUID key, adding no format, case-sensitivity, or valid-type guidance beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 specific verb ("Get") and resource ("object") with an identifying key (UUID) and a scope qualifier ("current domain"). An agent can distinguish it from crud_search (which presumably queries without a UUID), though the description never names that sibling or its own domain-bound behavior explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: "by UUID" hints that this is for direct lookups when the identifier is already known, leaving crud_search as the fallback for unknown IDs. No explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or sibling routing is stated.

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