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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds value by disclosing the response contents and the underlying endpoint (GET /waivers/{id}). It does not discuss error behavior for a missing/invalid id or whether signed participant data is paginated, which would complete the picture.

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?

Three tight sentences with the payload description front-loaded and the prerequisite immediately after. The 'API: GET /waivers/{id}' tail is mildly redundant for an agent but cheap and confirms endpoint identity.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient because it names the returned fields, which substitutes for a return-value spec. Only the failure mode for an unknown id is unaddressed.

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 parameter description already says 'The id (UUID) from the list tool', so the description's 'Get the id from otterwaiver_list_waivers' largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Get one waiver') and enumerates the payload an agent will receive (full text, settings, additional fields, signed participants). This clearly separates it from otterwaiver_list_waivers, which returns many waivers, and from the participant-oriented siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to otterwaiver_list_waivers as the source of the id, which is the key prerequisite for calling this tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. bulk retrieval), so it is clear context without full alternatives coverage.

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