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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already discloses the safety profile. The description adds the 'daily' qualifier and the REST endpoint, which provides some context beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't describe return format, error behavior, or response time, which are not critical for a simple read but would add completeness. Since annotations cover the safety aspect, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives the REST endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action, contains zero fluff, and every word earns its place. Ideal conciseness for this tool.

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-id getter with one required parameter, no output schema, and readOnly annotation, the description is complete. It tells you what it does and the REST path. Given the simplicity, no additional context is needed. The sibling tools suggest this is part of a larger API, but the description fully covers the use case.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter 'id' with 'The habit id.' The description echoes 'by id' but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate further.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Get a single daily habit by id.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reclaim_list_habits (list all habits) and reclaim_get_task (different resource). The REST endpoint further clarifies the action.

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 when to use it: you need a specific habit id. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear—this is for fetching one item by id, as opposed to listing all. A brief mention of when not to use it would make it a 5, but the current wording is sufficient for a simple getter.

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