get_consideration_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes beyond them by explaining the mechanism (FJsonObjectConverter over the consideration struct) and enumerating the returned payload, which tells the agent it gets full instance state, not a summary. No permissions, error behavior, or edge cases (e.g., invalid index) are mentioned, so it stops short of a 5.

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 sentences: the action is front-loaded, and the return shape is given as a compact field list on its own line. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 correctly supplies the return shape, and all three required parameters are documented in the schema, so an agent has enough to make the call. It lacks failure/edge-case context (nonexistent tree path, out-of-range index) that would make it fully 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%, with tree_path, state_name, and consideration_index each documented in the schema (including the 0-based note), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 the correct score.

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 verb+resource: 'Serialize a single consideration's instance data ... for inspection', which is meaningfully more precise than a generic getter. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling getters such as get_consideration_property or list_considerations, so an agent still has to infer which one to call. Clear purpose, no sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'for inspection' hints at read-only diagnostic use, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., get_consideration_property for a single field vs. this for the full serialized struct). Siblings like get_consideration_property and list_considerations overlap enough that guidance is genuinely needed here.

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