Get full documentation for one tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: what the returned dict contains, that inputSchema matches what an MCP client sees, that annotations may be None, that access is computed fail-closed, and the not_found error shape. It does not describe truncation limits or index staleness, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Well structured with clear Use/Not for/Returns/Errors sections that front-load the key behavior, but the Returns block enumerates every field of the returned dict, which is more verbose than needed for an agent that can inspect the output schema. Slight over-explanation of return fields.

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, the description need not enumerate return values, and it does so anyway. However, it covers usage, behavior, errors, and annotation handling completely enough that an agent can call this tool correctly without reading another definition. The only gap is not mentioning that the index may need refreshing via discover_refresh_index if a tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema description already explains that it is the full tool name from discover_tool_search. The description adds little beyond restating the exact-name lookup constraint, so baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get one tool's full description, parameter schema and MCP annotations.' The description distinguishes itself from the sibling discover_tool_search by explaining lookup is by exact name and by contrasting with keyword search. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it ('reading a specific tool's full contract after finding its name with discover_tool_search') and when not to use it ('searching by keyword — use discover_tool_search'). The routing to the alternative is unambiguous.

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