Get a scout

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: the specific fields present on the returned scout, the difference in query truncation, and the structuredContent {scout, recent_signals?} return shape. It stops short of noting any auth or rate-limit behavior, but for a pure read that is minor.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval scope, then the return-shape note. Nothing is repeated and no filler appears.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only fetch with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. Return-value explanation is present but minimal, which is right given the output schema exists.

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 both parameters are already fully documented, including the 24-hex id pattern and the enum semantics of response_format. The description restates the detailed-mode contents and adds only the detail that recent signals carry ids, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema's own explanation. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Fetches one scout by id" states a specific verb, resource, and cardinality, and the enumeration of returned facets (query, cadence, effort, scope, active state, preview state, signal counts) tells an agent exactly what it gets. It separates itself from heliyos_scouts_list by specifying a single record, though it never names the list tool as the id source — that routing hint lives only in 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance: nothing says to call this after heliyos_scouts_list to resolve an id, or to prefer heliyos_scouts_list, heliyos_companies_scouts_list, or heliyos_signals_list for aggregate needs. The concise-vs-detailed choice is defined only in terms of what data is returned, not when each mode is appropriate.

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