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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the record is 'verified' and that the response includes VOLO's reading, what it does not establish, and what a reader can verify. This gives useful behavioral context about the nature of the output. However, it does not disclose any side effects, error behavior, or access requirements, and 'verified' is somewhat ambiguous.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('One verified change record by id') and then adds the distinctive interpretive value. It is concise and readable, though the phrasing 'with VOLO's reading' is slightly jargon-heavy.

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 simple get-by-id tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and the unique nature of the response. However, it lacks parameter semantics and any guidance on locale, which is a required context for correct invocation. It is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'id' or 'locale' parameters. The description mentions 'by id' but does not clarify what the id refers to (e.g., change record id vs. occupation id) or how locale affects the response. With zero schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('one verified change record by id'), and adds a distinctive scope: it returns VOLO's reading of the change, including meaning, limitations, and what a reader can verify. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_change_history and find_affected, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 implies usage: use when you need a single verified change record by id and VOLO's interpretive reading. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_change_history or find_affected. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case, but exclusions are absent.

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