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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety burden is light; the description still adds useful behavior by specifying the not-found error for an unknown UUID and the full shape of what is returned. Missing only things like permission requirements, which are unlikely for a read.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then routing guidance, then args. Every sentence carries information, though the enumerated field list and separate Args block make it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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-parameter read with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, returned contents, error behavior, and sibling alternatives — everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning — it does, defining proc_id as the procedure UUID and pointing to the `id` from match_procedures or list_procedures as its source, which is more than the bare string schema provides.

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 ('Read one stored procedure by UUID') and enumerates what is returned (name, description, ordered steps, tags, success rate, usage count, timestamps), which also distinguishes it from match_procedures and list_procedures.

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?

Explicitly says it is for following or reviewing an already-identified procedure and names the sibling routing: match_procedures to find one for a task, list_procedures to enumerate, record_procedure_usage to log an outcome. When-to-use and alternatives are both covered.

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