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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations lack: the payload is a single record including full criteria and only the 5 most-recent PASS/FAIL events, which signals a bounded result set. It does not say what happens for an unknown or deleted id.

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?

One dense sentence covering the resource and return shape, followed by one short routing sentence. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the '5 most-recent' cap plus the polymorphic target list are the kind of specifics that earn their place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by naming the fields returned and the event cap. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid/soft-deleted id) and whether the embedded criteria are full definitions versus summaries, which is partly implied by 'full criteria'.

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% and the single parameter is documented as a UUID, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds value by framing the id's provenance — it comes from stride.list_quality_gates — which the schema does not state, helping the agent obtain a valid value.

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 quality gate by id') and then enumerates exactly what the payload contains: criteria, status, gateType, polymorphic target binding, and recent evaluation events. This clearly separates it from sibling reads like list_quality_gates or run_quality_gate_check without requiring the reader to open the 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 routes id discovery to stride.list_quality_gates, giving the agent the prerequisite for a required parameter. It does not state the inverse (when not to use this, e.g. to actually evaluate a gate use run_quality_gate_check), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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