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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes by enumerating the returned fields (status, source type, evidence, measured period, last verified date), which is genuinely additive absent an output schema. It says nothing about behavior on a missing or malformed code, so it stays mid-range.

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 filler; each clause adds either the lookup key, an example format, or a returned field. Nothing is padded and nothing important is buried.

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 read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the input format and the shape of the result, which is the bulk of what an agent needs. The only gap is a statement about behavior when the code does not resolve.

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% and the single `code` property already documents itself and gives an example (ATT-06). The description's example (ENF-01) is a helpful format confirmation but largely repeats the schema, so the 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?

"One claim by code" states the resource and the retrieval scope, and the singularity implicitly separates it from the sibling list_claims. It names no sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the browse-vs-fetch split from the name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the singular "One claim" suggests a targeted fetch rather than enumeration, contrasting with list_claims. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. where codes come from), and no guidance on what to do if the code is unknown.

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