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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's job is lighter. It adds value by naming the returned facets (status, contact, address, time window), but says nothing about what the three include_* flags change in the response, which is the main behavioral unknown here.

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: resource-and-contents first, endpoint mapping second. No filler, no repetition of the title, and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to preview the returned fields. But for a four-parameter tool where three optional flags are undocumented anywhere, and with no detail on error behavior for a bad ID, an agent still has gaps to guess at.

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 only 25% – only stop_id has any description ('The stopId.'), which is itself tautological. The description does nothing to explain include_items, include_lines, or include_tracking_link, so three of four parameters are undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Get one stop') plus a clarifying gloss that a stop is a delivery or pickup, and an explicit endpoint mapping (GET /stops/{id}). It is distinguishable from list/scheduled-stop siblings, though it does not name search_stops or list_scheduled_stops as the alternatives.

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?

The '/stops/{id}' form implies this is for a known stop ID rather than browsing, which is useful implicit routing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of search_stops or list_scheduled_stops, and no prerequisite or permission guidance.

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