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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant. The description earns credit elsewhere by disclosing data semantics an agent could otherwise misread: 'the first is primary' for processes, empty pricing models means unknown, non_attested means unconfirmed by the publisher, and unknown values are labelled as such.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with verb, resource and id provenance before the field inventory. Every clause carries meaning, though the field list is long enough that the run-on structure makes it slightly harder to scan.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still covers the interpretation traps (empty pricing, non_attested status, unknown markers, primary process ordering) that an output schema alone would not clarify. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already gives the example format, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds provenance semantics the schema lacks: the id is an option id originally returned by search_solutions, which tells the agent where a valid value comes from.

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 ('Returns one HODDS catalogue record by id') and immediately differentiates from the sibling that produces the id ('an option id returned by search_solutions'), so an agent can distinguish it from search_solutions, compare_solutions and find_comparable_solutions.

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 pointer that the id comes from search_solutions gives a clear usage context and implicitly sequences discovery before retrieval. There is no explicit 'do not use this when...' or naming of the comparison siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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