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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds a real behavioral trait annotations don't: the conditional fetch via if_version_matches, which can return `not_modified` instead of the code. It doesn't mention error behavior, but for a read tool that gap is minor.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the two optimization knobs. No filler, and each clause carries distinct information.

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 read-only getter with a fully documented 4-parameter schema and no output schema, this is nearly complete. The one gap is the relationship to sibling retrieval tools, which is not addressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still earns credit by explaining intent — the version value should come from a previous get_script/update_script, and `fields` exists to trim payload. This adds purpose beyond the schema's literal parameter definitions.

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 and resource: fetches an automation script's details, including the generated Playwright/Cypress test code. That distinguishes it from list_scripts and update_script, but the description doesn't say how it differs from other retrievers, such as k6_get_script.

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?

Gives concrete guidance on how to use the tool well: reuse the version from a previous read so the call returns a cheap `not_modified`, and pass `fields` when only part of the record is needed. It doesn't state when to choose this over similar getters, but the usage context is clear.

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