Get LoS consequence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'no notification is sent,' which is not encoded in any annotation and prevents an agent from assuming side effects.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the advisory caveat and the field semantics. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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 usefully explains that scope_ref varies by scope_type and is null for global, giving the agent enough to interpret the response. It omits return shape/pagination, but for a single-by-ID fetch this is minor.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies. The scope_ref detail actually describes a returned field, not an input parameter, so it does not augment parameter understanding.

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 (get) and resource (LoS consequence) with a clear scope qualifier ('single ... by ID'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_los_consequences. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 offers no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance; 'Advisory only' is a behavioral fact rather than routing advice. An agent gets no explicit direction on when to call this rather than the list or update variants.

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