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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: the GET endpoint and the full list of returned fields. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 efficient sentences. The core action and field list come first, followed by the id source and endpoint path; there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing return content. It does so by listing the main CAPA fields, and it supplies the id source and endpoint. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 defines the id as a GUID. The description adds meaningful lineage by saying the id is the GUID `Id` obtained from safetychain_search_capas, which is not conveyed by the schema alone.

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 CAPA's details') and enumerates the fields returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_capa_activity or get_capa_history. It also names the exact REST endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous.

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?

It clearly routes the agent to get this tool's id from safetychain_search_capas, establishing the correct lookup flow. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus get_capa_activity, get_capa_history, or get_capa_tasks, but the field list implies the core-record use case.

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