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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds real behavioral context by naming the returned fields and specifying that the 'versions' facet returns published snapshot metadata ordered newest first. It does not mention error behavior for an unknown id or permission requirements.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: what it returns first, then the optional facet with its semantics, then id provenance and the related linking tool. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, plus it covers the optional facet, its ordering, id sourcing, and a natural next step. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and a 3 would be acceptable baseline. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the versions facet actually contains and its ordering, and reinforces the provenance of adrId.

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?

Uses a specific verb (fetch) plus a precisely scoped resource (one architecture decision record) and enumerates the returned fields. The 'one' plus the pointer to stride.list_adrs makes it distinguishable from the list sibling without opening either schema.

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 the id must come from stride.list_adrs, which tells the agent the list tool is the prerequisite alternative, and points to stride.create_cross_link as the follow-up for linking. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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