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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context not present in annotations: 'no auth, no state changes, no charges' and 'Public read-only.' This informs the agent about authentication requirements and monetary implications, exceeding what the structured metadata provides.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase earns its place: scope, prerequisite, safety, and alternative. There is no redundant or unnecessary wording.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema present, strong annotations), the description covers all needed context: when to use (after search), what it does (fetch one record), and its safety profile. The output schema documents return values, so no further explanation is needed.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'id' as 'Record id returned by the search tool,' giving 100% coverage. The description repeats this by mentioning 'by id after search' and 'use search first,' but adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Fetch one public Cannon Studio knowledge record by id after search.' It specifies the resource (knowledge record), the scoping (one public record), and the prerequisite (by id after search). It also implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'search' tool by requiring an existing id.

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 guidance: 'use search first when you do not already have a record id.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the search tool, making the decision clear and unambiguous.

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