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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the underlying endpoint mapping (GET /risk_factors/{id}), which is modest extra context, but says nothing about error behavior (e.g. invalid id), authentication, or response shape. Against an annotation-covered read tool, this is adequate but thin.

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 purpose and followed by traceability to the underlying endpoint. Nothing is wasted, though the endpoint restatement is arguably redundant.

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 simple single-resource lookup with full schema coverage and a read-only annotation, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. A sentence pointing to the list/search sibling for id discovery would have completed it.

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%, so the schema already documents id, age, dev_mode, and model_id, including the Dev-Mode header behavior and example id format. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get a single risk factor by its id') and the singular scope naturally contrasts with the sibling list_risk_factors. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus infermedica_list_risk_factors or infermedica_search_concepts to obtain an id first. The only usable signal is the required 'id' parameter, which the schema already enforces.

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