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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety burden is off the description. The description adds only the word "live", hinting at fresh (non-cached) retrieval, and nothing about auth, rate limits, or failure modes. That is thin but not contradictory.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is slightly incomplete for its length, since it omits the targetLang selector entirely, which is a content gap rather than verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, with three alternative selectors and zero required parameters, the description should at least acknowledge the targetLang-only path that lets the tool be called with no id or uri. That omission leaves the calling options incompletely framed.

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 100% and each parameter already documents precedence (id wins over uri, targetLang as fallback). The description only restates the id/uri selectors with the same examples, adding no new meaning. 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 and resource: fetches the full live Lingard JSON record for a given selector. It is clear what it does, but it does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling lingard_get_learning_context, which the targetLang fallback overlaps with.

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 phrase "search-result id" implies this is called after search, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and neither `search` nor `lingard_get_learning_context` is named as an alternative. Usage is only implied.

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