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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the lookup returns the parent group rather than a task object, EA ids and database ids are different namespaces, and no completion or account state is mutated. The closing sentence is terse but confirms the non-mutating scope.

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-loads the core action and the id sourcing in the first sentence, with clarifying constraints after. The final clause ('No account tracking, biography or completion mutation') is slightly cryptic in phrasing but short and non-redundant.

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 tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, id sourcing, and return shape adequately. Only the explicit sibling routing is missing, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the positive child EA objective id and its source fields. The description restates the same sourcing guidance rather than adding new meaning such as format constraints or edge-case behavior for unknown ids, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: read the parent FC27 objective group via a child EA objective id. It also clarifies the result is the parent group, not a standalone task, which distinguishes the output from other objective-related siblings. It stops short of naming a specific sibling to use instead, so differentiation is partial.

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?

Tells the agent where to source the id (objectivesEaIds or objectives[].eaId) and warns that EA group ids and database ids are distinct, which is useful routing context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over futgg_fc27_objective_group_by_ea or futgg_fc27_objective_group, leaving the alternative choice implicit.

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