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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the full record ('all its fields') is returned, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about behavior when the id does not exist or what the response envelope looks like.

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, front-loaded with the retrieval semantics and followed by the underlying endpoint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and that all fields are returned, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain around not-found behavior and response shape.

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% for the single benchmark_id parameter, including a numeric pattern constraint, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'by id' merely restates it without adding format or validation nuance.

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: 'Get one benchmark by id with all its fields,' which clearly signals a single-record fetch. The singularity and 'by id' phrasing implicitly separate it from galaxydigital_list_benchmarks, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is for retrieving a known benchmark id rather than enumerating benchmarks. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_benchmarks, nor any prerequisite or error-condition guidance.

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