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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious traits beyond that — no content is downloaded and the response shape for spreadsheets differs (tables and columns only present for that type). The raw endpoint path adds minor operational context.

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 short sentences with zero padding; the most decision-relevant fact (metadata only, no file content) is front-loaded and the conditional spreadsheet behavior is tucked in efficiently.

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 return-value burden and does so reasonably: it enumerates status, version, and conditional tables/columns. It stops short of describing the object shape or error behavior for an invalid id, keeping it just shy of fully 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 the single parameter is documented in-schema (including how to obtain it from list_resources), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only hints at the id via the path template and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it — the baseline 3 is appropriate for a one-parameter tool.

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 names the specific resource (one resource) and enumerates the returned metadata fields (status, version, tables/columns), which separates it from devicemagic_list_resources. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, but the operation (describe/fetch metadata for a single resource) is unmistakable.

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 file content itself is not downloaded' implies the intended use case (inspect a resource without pulling bytes) and acts as an implicit when-not. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_resources or how the agent should follow up if it needs the actual content, leaving the routing to the agent to infer.

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