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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the result is an immutable historical snapshot rather than a recomputation, and access is scoped to "the key that created it and to its enterprise workspace." It omits rate limits or pagination behavior, but those are secondary here.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a tight clause on snapshot semantics and a short sentence on access scope. Both sentences earn their place, though the em-dash clause packing value/ranges/hull-check is somewhat dense and slightly overlaps what the output schema conveys.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and it correctly covers the things the schema cannot: immutability across model releases and the visibility/authorization scope. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, aside from any note on error behavior for an unknown id.

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 single parameter is already documented in the schema as the "uwe_…" id from an enrich result. The description only restates that the lookup is "by its enrichment_id" and adds no format or provenance detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Return") and resource ("a stored underwriting enrichment") with a clear scoping qualifier ("exactly as it was first served ... even after a later model release") that distinguishes it from the sibling enrichment-creating tools such as enrich_aircraft_for_underwriting. An agent can tell this is a retrieval-by-id of a frozen snapshot, not a computation.

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?

Gives clear context for when this tool applies — re-serving a previously stored enrichment by its id, useful for reproducibility after a model release. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. call enrich_aircraft_for_underwriting to produce a fresh enrichment) or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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