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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds the concrete endpoint (GET /needs/{id}) and confirms all fields are returned, but says nothing about behavior when the id does not exist (error vs empty) or about authorization requirements.

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 filler, front-loaded with the core action and return scope. The endpoint reference is compact and useful for developers.

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 trivial single-record lookup with one fully documented parameter and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the essentials, including what is returned. A note on behavior for missing ids would make it 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% with a single required need_id parameter that already carries a pattern constraint. The description only echoes 'by id' and adds no format, range, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema — baseline 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 and resource ("Get one need by id") and clarifies the return scope with "with all its fields." The singular "one need" implicitly separates it from galaxydigital_list_needs, though the sibling is never named.

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: the singular 'one need by id' suggests direct lookup rather than listing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus galaxydigital_list_needs or the related list_need_questions/list_need_responses tools. No prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned.

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