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

The description states it returns lines, damage, and shortage per line, which is useful beyond the annotations. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe. It doesn't mention pagination or other potential behaviors, but the constraints are well-covered by the description.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a single goods-receipt note by id') and adds essential details (lines, damage, shortage). No unnecessary words, ideal length.

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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It tells what will be returned. There's no mention of possible errors or edge cases, but those are not critical for a simple fetch. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters, so the description fills the remaining gap about the response content.

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 covers the parameter fully (100% coverage), providing description and example. The description adds the additional detail that the response will include lines and damage/shortage, which enhances understanding beyond the schema. The parameter itself is well-documented in the schema, so the description's contribution is modest but positive.

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 action: get a single goods-receipt note by id, and its scope. It mentions the included lines and damage/shortage details, which is specific and informative. It distinguishes this from sibling grn_list (which likely returns multiple) by specifying 'a single' and 'by id'.

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 the tool is for fetching an individual GRN, which is clear from context. It does not explicitly contrast with grn_list or other siblings, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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