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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the composition of the response (step definitions, entry trigger, enrollment statistics, completion rate), which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose first, then usage. Zero filler, and the return contents are front-loaded before the routing hint.

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 single-parameter read tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, this covers what an agent needs: the identifier, what comes back, and when to call it. Nothing material is missing despite the absence of an output schema.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the UUID format. The description repeats the identifier type ('by UUID') but adds no syntax or behavior beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (a single Meisa automation sequence) scoped by UUID, and enumerates the returned payload (steps, entry trigger, enrollment stats, completion rate). The 'single' scope plus the resource noun cleanly distinguishes it from list_sequences and from the other get_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: user asks for details about a specific sequence or wants to review its steps. No alternatives or exclusions are named (e.g., when to prefer list_sequences vs this), so it stops short of a full when/when-not mapping.

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