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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval action through 'open' and describes the content of the returned records, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is safe, idempotent, or requires permissions, and does not disclose any side effects or rate limits. The examples of record contents are useful but fall short of full transparency.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose with illustrative examples, and the second provides a direct usage directive. No filler or redundancy exists; every word contributes to understanding the tool's role.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter tool with a clear output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. It sufficiently explains when to use the tool and what kind of information can be expected. The examples of record types give context beyond the schema. It lacks explicit limitations or when-not-to-use guidance, but for a fetch-by-id utility, the coverage is strong.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, describing it as 'The exact id returned by search, unchanged.' The description reinforces this by mentioning 'an id returned by search' and advising to call before citing a number, but it does not add new syntactic or semantic details beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Open the full record behind an id returned by search.' It provides concrete examples of record types (agency profile, contractor award history, solicitation) and explicitly positions it as the detail-retrieval counterpart to search. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agency_profile or contractor_profile, which may focus on specific entity types.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Call this whenever you need the detail behind a search result, and always before citing a number.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools explicitly, so it lacks the full exclusions/alternatives that would merit a 5.

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