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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Full verified record' vaguely signals that the response is a complete, authoritative entry, but nothing is said about error behavior for a missing name, whether the lookup is case-sensitive or exact-match, or whether any auth is required.

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 efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in guidance and parameter detail.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it says what is fetched. It falls short on identifier format and not-found behavior, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% for the single 'name' parameter. The description only echoes the parameter's name ('by name') and adds no meaning such as exact-match semantics, casing, slug-vs-display-name format, or accepted input form.

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: retrieves the full record for a single tool identified by name. The 'one tool by name' phrasing distinguishes it in spirit from search_tools, but it never names the sibling or states the contrast explicitly.

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?

'by name' implies this is the exact-lookup path you use once you already know the tool's name, which hints at when to prefer it over search_tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of what to do if the name is unknown, and no routing guidance toward search_tools or catalog_info.

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