Get overlay

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the response is a deep aggregate of widgets plus their settings, and it can be large — a payload-size caveat the annotations do not 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core identity of the call front-loaded and the size caveat trailing as a secondary caution. 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so at a useful level (overlay plus all widgets and their settings) plus a size warning. What is missing is failure behavior for a nonexistent or unauthorized overlayId, a relevant gap given openWorldHint.

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% for both parameters, including the channel-id defaulting rule, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, id, or channel-selection detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 overlay') and adds scope detail ('with all of its widgets and their settings'), which implicitly separates it from overlays_list. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative (e.g. overlays_update, overlays_list). The note 'Responses can be large' arguably hints that this is the heavyweight option, but the agent must infer that guidance rather than read it.

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