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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals conditional behavior: it includes the connect URL when the publisher provides one, otherwise it falls back to inline connection or pull details. This adds genuine behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and there is no contradiction.

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 three sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, the conditional return behavior is compactly stated, and the field summary is brief. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with idempotent annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to identify the resource, and what response contents to expect. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

The schema description covers 100% of the parameter with a format example and accepted URN prefixes, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the provenance of the identifier ('as returned by search_resources / list_resources'), which is minimal extra value.

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 action ('Get the full record') and the specific resource identified by URN, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that discover or list resources. The phrase 'for one discovered ARD resource by its identifier' makes the select-by-URN behavior explicit.

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 tells the agent that the identifier comes from search_resources / list_resources, implicitly establishing a discover-then-fetch workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but for a simple read operation the intended context is clear.

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