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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /techs/{id}), reinforcing that this is a direct non-mutating lookup, but says nothing about behavior on a missing id, permissions, or return shape.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource scope comes first and the endpoint mapping second. It is efficient, though the endpoint path is of marginal value to an agent that cannot call raw HTTP.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin: it omits what a technician record contains and how a not-found id behaves, and with no output schema the return value is left entirely unspecified.

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 100%, with tech_id and the fields projection both documented in the schema itself. The description only restates that the lookup is by id, adding no format or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource plus scope: "One technician by id," which contrasts with the sibling list_techs by implying a single-record fetch. It falls short of a 5 because it never names the sibling or explicitly says it is not the list 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?

"by id" implies the precondition that the agent already holds a tech id, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of list_techs as the alternative for browsing, and no note about related lookups like get_crew or get_me.

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