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 that included records are requested via `include` and cites the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about not-found behavior or what an omitted `include` returns.

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 compact sentences with the core identity front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information.

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 with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. Only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior for an invalid UUID, which are low-stakes for a read-only getter.

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% – both `branch_id` (with format/pattern and a pointer to street_list_branches) and `include` (with allowed enum values) are fully documented. The description restates the `include` concept but adds no syntax or behavior beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("One branch by UUID") and distinguishes itself from the list sibling by emphasizing a single record with an optional include. It does not explicitly name street_list_branches, but the singular/count distinction is unmistakable.

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 phrase "by UUID" implies you need an id obtained elsewhere, and indeed the schema points to street_list_branches. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named in the description itself.

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