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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose 'Read-only', which is the key safety trait. It also implies account-scoped lookups of previously stored results, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for unscreened documents, or staleness of the stored analysis.

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 with zero padding, and the core action is front-loaded before the scoping qualifier and the read-only note.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, the precondition, and the side-effect profile. A brief note on the return shape or behavior when no analysis exists would make it fully complete.

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 0%, but there is only one required parameter (document_id) and the description's 'for a document' makes its meaning fairly self-evident. It adds no format/origin detail (e.g., that the ID comes from screen_document), so it only partially compensates 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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve the stored risk analysis for a document'. The qualifier 'already screened by this account' scopes it away from the screening siblings, but it never names screen_document or bulk_screen, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

'for a document already screened by this account' implies the precondition that screening must have happened first, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus screen_document or get_bulk_status, nor what to do if the document was never screened.

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