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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavior that it returns 'full results' from a prior search, but it does not disclose additional traits like pagination, limits, or error states. Without annotations, this would be insufficient, but with them it meets the minimum viability for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 conveys the purpose and the key requirement (search ID). It contains no redundant words or fluff; every word earns its place.

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 retrieval tool with one well-documented parameter and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It communicates the essential context: it operates on a previous search and returns complete results. It does not explain the return format, but no output schema exists, and 'full results' gives a reasonable expectation. This is adequate for the low complexity.

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?

The schema covers both parameters (actually one) completely, with a clear description of search_id as 'The search ID returned from claimhit_search or claimhit_get_history'. The description adds no additional nuance beyond the schema, and the baseline for high schema coverage is 3.

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 tool gets full results from a previous ClaimHit search using a search ID. It uses a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource ('full results from a previous ClaimHit search'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like claimhit_search (starts a search) and claimhit_get_history (likely lists searches).

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 provides context that this tool is used after a search has been performed, by referencing 'a previous ClaimHit search' and requiring the search ID. It does not explicitly compare with other siblings such as claimhit_rerun_search, but the 'previous search' phrasing gives clear intended use without ambiguity. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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