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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the '[read-only]' prefix is redundant. However, the description adds genuine context the annotations do not cover: the underlying endpoint (GET /api/v2/experiments/{id}) and, more importantly, the shape of what is returned (hypothesis, variants, compareKey, window, status) for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, with the endpoint reference parenthetically at the end. No filler, though the bracket notation is terse to the point of under-explaining.

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 one-parameter getter this covers most of what is needed, and the returned-field list partially compensates for the absent output schema. It still leaves the id's provenance/format unaddressed and does not route the agent to related result/history tools.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single 'id' parameter is undocumented; the description only hints at it via the '{id}' path template. It never states what form the id takes (experiment id vs name) or where to obtain it.

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 resource ('One experiment') and enumerates what it contains (hypothesis, variants, compareKey, window, status), which separates it from list_experiments and get_experiment_results. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied by singular/plural and 'results' rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. needing an experiment id from list_experiments), and no mention of the adjacent get_experiment_results or list_experiments alternatives. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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