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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and not open-world, and the description stays consistent. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations: no API key is required, returned content is untrusted community data, and the entry includes current score/verification status. Minor: it does not expand on data freshness or failure modes, but annotations lower the burden.

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, each earning its place: what the tool does, when to use it, and a security/auth caveat. The most important purpose is front-loaded.

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 lookup with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the entry source (id from search), purpose (refresh), authentication (none), and trust boundary (untrusted community data). Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the schema already fully documents 'id' as the numeric entry id returned by corrobyte_search_entries. The description reinforces this provenance but adds no new semantic detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action ('Fetch a specific error-to-fix entry by its saved id') and names the data included (current score and verification status). It also distinguishes the tool from the search sibling by positioning it as a refresh operation, so an agent can route correctly.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use this tool to refresh a result from corrobyte_search_entries without rerunning a search. This names the relevant alternative and states when the tool is preferred, plus the simple one-id usage is evident.

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