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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds modest context: the GET endpoint and the fact that requested includes are embedded in an 'included' collection, which is useful given no output schema. It says nothing about errors, missing/cancelled records, or response shape beyond that.

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 sentences, with the core capability front-loaded ahead of the endpoint detail. The trailing 'GET /sales-instructions/{id}' is mildly redundant with the prose but cheap and confirms read semantics.

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 get-by-id call the description is close to sufficient, especially since the 'included' payload is mentioned. However, with no output schema and no explanation of how the 'cancelled' filter changes results, an agent cannot fully predict what it will get back in edge cases.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the 'include' parameter and confirms its purpose (embedding related records), but adds no new meaning for the 'cancelled' filter, whose enum semantics ('with' vs 'only') are only partially documented in the schema.

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: fetch a single sales instruction by UUID, which cleanly separates it from street_list_sales_instructions and the many other street_get_* entity tools. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by UUID' signals you must already have an identifier, and the schema notes the id comes from street_list_sales_instructions, but the description itself gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over street_get_sale or street_get_lettings_instruction.

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