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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: nested schemas are inlined up to depth 4, deeper objects are marked truncated, large schemas are trimmed to fit, and hints/recipes are included. It stops short of discussing auth, rate limits, or the ackToken gating, which appears only in the 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the tool's output scope and then the behavioral caveats. Every sentence carries information (truncation limits, trimming behavior, section workaround) with no filler.

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?

The description is complete for a schema-fetching tool with no output schema: it describes what the response contains (parameters, request body with schema and example, responses, hints, recipes), how nested and large schemas are handled, and how to fetch full sections. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the reason for the 'section' parameter: large schemas are trimmed, so section='request'/'response' fetches one part in full. It also identifies the source of the required operationId, providing practical meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Full schema of one operation' and enumerates exactly what is returned (parameters, request body, responses, hints, recipes). It clearly targets 'operation' schemas, which differentiates it from sibling schema tools for fields, filters, or scenario nodes, 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?

It provides useful workflow context by noting that 'operationId' comes from list_operations/search_operations, and it explains the 'section' escape hatch for fetching one part in full. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance relative to sibling tools, leaving usage mostly implied.

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