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

Annotations establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is already covered. The description adds substantial value by explaining the shape of the returned piece data, including settings choices, example words, and anatomy, though it does not discuss failure modes 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?

The description front-loads the core purpose with 'Everything about one piece,' but it then becomes a long, dense sentence with nested parentheticals. Every clause carries information, yet the structure is difficult to parse and could be broken into clearer sentences.

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 does useful work by describing the returned piece anatomy in detail. It still leaves ambiguity about when this tool should be used instead of similar read-oriented siblings, but for invoking the tool correctly with the given schema it is largely complete.

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 100%, so parameter meaning is already well documented. The description does not add much about how id, lang, or example should be combined beyond what the schema and enum descriptions already say, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 clearly scopes the tool to one piece and enumerates what information is returned: purpose, duration, settings, elements, example words, and anatomy. It does not explicitly distinguish get_piece from overlapping siblings like show_piece, piece_for_view, or check_piece, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The closing instruction 'Read it before filling a shot' gives a concrete usage context. However, it provides no explicit when-not guidance and does not explain when to choose this tool over show_piece, piece_for_view, or check_piece.

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