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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a non-destructive read, so the description's 'Fetch' framing repeats rather than extends it. It does add useful scope information about what gets returned, but discloses nothing about auth needs, error behavior when the id is missing, or response size for large intakes.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second gives the equivalent API endpoint. No filler or repetition of the title.

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-record fetch with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the identifier, and the shape of the return payload. It is nearly complete; only the absence of any linkage to how an intake_id is obtained keeps it short of full marks.

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 intake_id parameter is documented in the schema as a GUID, so the description need not compensate. It adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 (fetch) and resource (one intake questionnaire) and enumerates the payload: every question and answer, consent forms, and linked appointment. The singular 'one' implicitly contrasts with intakeq_list_intakes, though it never names the 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: the presence of intakeq_list_intakes and the word 'one' suggest this is the single-record retrieval path, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no stated prerequisite (e.g., needing an id from the list call).

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