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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'plus its version history' beyond the obvious record retrieval, which is useful context, but it doesn't mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. Still, it is adequate for a simple lookup.

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 is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key purpose, and contains no superfluous words. It earns its place with direct information.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (true) and is a simple retrieval by ID, the description is nearly complete. It mentions the core data and version history. It could optionally note what 'full canonical record' includes, but it's not essential.

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% (no description for studio_id in schema), and the tool description does not explain the parameter's meaning, valid values, or format. The user cannot learn anything about the parameter beyond its type and required status.

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 states the verb 'get' and the resource 'studio', and specifies it returns the 'full canonical record' plus 'version history'. This distinguishes it from search tools and other get_*_details tools by resource type.

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 description implies use when you need a single studio's complete data and history, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_studios_by_text or other get_*_details tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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