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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description needs only to add context. It contributes the HTTP endpoint and the domain scope (which record types are covered), which is modest added value; it says nothing about 404/not-found behavior or what happens for cancelled/void consignments.

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, and the identifying information (what is returned, keyed by what) comes first. The endpoint path is compact and useful for agents reasoning about the underlying API.

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 read-only single-record fetch with full parameter documentation and readOnlyHint, the description covers what is needed to select and invoke it. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not hint at the return shape, so the agent cannot anticipate the response fields.

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% and there is a single required parameter whose pattern and provenance ('from list_consignments') are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the id's format or source, so it sits at the 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 the specific resource (one consignment) with the qualifier 'by id' and enumerates the underlying record types (stock order, transfer, stocktake, return), so the agent knows exactly what is fetched. It does not name list_consignments as the contrasting sibling, but 'by id' plus the singular framing makes the single-vs-list distinction inferable.

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 id-based framing signals 'call this when you already have a consignment id'. The schema note '(from list_consignments)' carries the workflow hint, but that lives in structured data, not the description. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is offered.

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