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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful behavior the annotations cannot express: access is filtered by the caller's visibility class, and gated items return an account_required pointer instead of an error or empty result — a trait an agent must know to interpret the response correctly. It omits what happens for a nonexistent item_id, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core operation stated first and the access-control caveat second. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description needn't explain return shape. Still missing for a simple single-parameter tool: the format of item_id and any hint about how this differs from the near-identically named sibling read_corpus_item.

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 0% and the sole parameter item_id has no documentation in the schema. The description never mentions item_id, its expected format (ID, slug, prefix), or whether it is required, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read one corpus item's full record') and enumerates what the record contains (evidence, license, quality, tags). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'read_corpus_item', which appears to promise the same operation, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.

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 visibility-class sentence implies usage context (some items are gated and return a pointer rather than data), which is useful. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_corpus or read_corpus_item, and no stated prerequisites for calling it.

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