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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the underlying REST endpoint but says nothing about how the optional age, model_id, or dev_mode parameters alter behavior or what the response contains.

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, zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the endpoint detail. Nothing could be removed without losing content.

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 single-entity fetcher with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it. It could still note that age/model_id are optional context modifiers, but the omission is minor.

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%, with id, age, dev_mode, and model_id all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by its id' adds no syntax or format information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a single risk factor by its id'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling infermedica_list_risk_factors by implying singular retrieval. The Engine API endpoint reinforces exactly what it does, though no sibling is named 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 implied by 'by its id' — call it when you already hold a risk factor id — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. list/search guidance or statement of prerequisites. Adequate minimum, with the list/single distinction left for 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.