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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the response contains a sensitive check-in URL that acts as a credential, plus the underlying GET /v1/snitches/{token} semantics. It does not cover not-found or invalid-token behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tightly written sentences that front-load what is returned and then the security caveat. The trailing 'GET /v1/snitches/{token}' is arguably implementation detail an agent does not need, but it is brief and harmless.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of return values and it does so by naming the full-detail payload and the key field returned. What remains missing is any failure-mode behavior for an unknown token or name.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that the argument accepts a token, masked token, or exact name. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('One snitch with its full details') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling list tool by emphasizing a single record and its complete payload. An agent can distinguish it from deadmanssnitch_list_snitches without opening either schema.

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 implied by the framing ('one snitch with its full details'), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite call-out, and no named alternative such as list_snitches for bulk retrieval. The guidance about sharing the URL is a security caution, not selection guidance.

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