Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context — the tool is a thin consumer of a central concept_reservation authority and surfaces dependency_blocked/ConceptAuthorityUnavailable errors rather than failing locally — but it frames this around 'mutating actions', which this read-only tool is not, so it does not describe what get itself does when the authority is down or the reservation is absent.

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 two short paragraphs are not bloated, but the lead sentence is wasted on restating the name and the architecture explanation is largely irrelevant to a read tool. 'Never allocates a concept id itself' and 'never mints or reuses an id on its own' say the same thing twice.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool with 26 parameters and a dense sibling family, the description leaves the core question unanswered: what a get retrieves and how it is identified. The single most important thing an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or meaning beyond the schema's own 'For reserve/list/get' tags; for a 26-parameter surface the schema does the heavy lifting and the prose is silent.

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 opens with 'Get (rm_concepts)' — a near-tautological restatement of the name — then pivots to the architecture of the authority port. It never states what a get operation actually retrieves (a reservation? a claim by id?) or on what key, despite the schema implying 'reservation_id' is the lookup key for get. An agent cannot tell from the text what this tool returns.

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?

No guidance on when to call get versus rm_concepts_list, rm_concepts_reserve, or the other siblings. The only implicit distinction is that 'every mutating action refuses' when authority is unavailable, which weakly implies get is non-mutating, but this is inferred rather than stated and applies to the whole family.

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