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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Fetch' which implies a read-only operation, and lists the returned content. However, it does not explicitly disclose safety (e.g., 'does not modify data'), potential error behavior (e.g., not found), or any side effects. It is not contradictory, but it leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then efficiently lists the included components. There is zero waste; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies what is returned (established fact, claims, version scope, source URLs), giving the agent a clear idea of the response. It lacks explicit error handling or response format details, but these are minor for a straightforward fetch operation. Given the lack of annotations, it could be more explicit about read-only behavior, but the verb 'Fetch' covers that.

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% – the only parameter, slug, has a description that already explains its origin. The tool description adds 'by slug' but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents the parameter, the baseline of 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 specific verb 'Fetch', the resource 'one published record', and the method 'by slug'. It also enumerates the contents (established fact, claims, version scope, source URLs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_records that return lists. The title reinforces the purpose.

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 implies usage when you have a slug and want full details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema description for the slug parameter mentions it comes from search_records / lookup_error_code, which is helpful but resides in the schema, not the tool description. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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