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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description's addition of 'GET' is consistent but not extra behavioral insight. It does not disclose error behavior (e.g., 404 on missing id) or auth requirements, which would add value beyond annotations.

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: first states purpose, second gives the API endpoint. No filler, front-loaded, and efficient.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and readOnly annotations, this description is complete. No output schema exists, but the operation is straightforward and the description covers essential intent.

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 schema already describes 'id' as 'Counterparty id'. The description merely echoes 'by id', adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('single counterparty by id'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_counterparties' (multiple) and 'create_counterparty' (creation). The API endpoint confirms it's a read operation.

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 description implies use when you have a specific id and want one counterparty, but does not explicitly contrast with 'list_counterparties' or state when not to use. The context of sibling tools makes it clear, but a brief note would improve guidance.

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