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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts: secrets are masked by the server (so callers should not expect raw secret values) and the operation requires an editor role (an auth prerequisite). This is real value not present in the structured fields.

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?

A single compact sentence covering purpose, contents, secret masking, and auth requirement with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the resource ('One bot function') though slightly dense.

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 read-only detail tool with a fully documented 2-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, key caveats (masked secrets), and auth requirements. Only minor gaps remain, such as no explicit routing to list/health siblings.

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?

Both parameters have full schema description coverage, including provenance hints ('as returned by dosai_list_projects' / 'dosai_list_functions'). The description adds nothing further about the IDs, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the semantics.

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?

The description states it returns details for a single bot function, enumerating the content: what it does, when it runs, its parameters, and its active state. This implicitly distinguishes it from dosai_list_functions (plural list) and dosai_list_function_runs, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 implied by the description (fetch one function's details), and it states the prerequisite 'Requires editor role.' However, it never says when to use this versus dosai_list_functions or dosai_get_functions_health, nor when it should be avoided.

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