Describe Tool

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 workflow context ('after discover_tools returns a compact match') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as session-related requirements or output behavior beyond what the schema and annotations already convey.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose and usage context with no filler or redundant wording. Every phrase 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?

For a low-complexity lookup tool, the description is sufficient: it has a clear trigger, full schema coverage, strong annotations, and an output schema, so return-value details do not need to be repeated in the description. The tool is fully usable as documented.

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 all three parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond aligning 'full description' with the 'full' boolean, but it does not need to compensate because the schema carries the burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('full description for one registered AirMCP tool'), and explicitly contrasts with discover_tools's 'compact match'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling discover_tools and makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 'after discover_tools returns a compact match' clearly establishes when this tool should be used in relation to its main alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the contextual sequencing is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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