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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context: citation markers like [1] map to numbered sources, and the agent should surface sources and intended_use alongside the answer — real behavioral guidance beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by sourcing and citation handling. Every sentence carries information; the only mild inefficiency is the imperative 'Show the sources...' which addresses the agent rather than describing the tool.

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 so return structure need not be restated, and the description still names the key content pieces (cited paragraphs, limitations, graded sources) plus the citation-marker convention. The only gap is locale, which is neither described nor disambiguated anywhere.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains where slug comes from (search_evidence_library) but gives no format details, and the locale parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of two params completely undocumented.

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 (get) and resource (full published evidence answer) and enumerates the payload — cited paragraphs, limitations, graded sources — which distinguishes it from the sibling search_evidence_library. It stops short of an explicit 'this returns one document by identifier' framing but is clearly more than vague.

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 line 'Use a slug from search_evidence_library' establishes the precondition and the correct upstream tool, giving the agent a clear workflow context. There is no explicit when-not guidance or a named alternative for other lookup paths, which keeps it below a 5.

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