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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, not open-world), and the description adds genuine value by disclosing the payload shape: all episodes with links, key points, sources, and article text. It says nothing about behavior on an invalid or ambiguous id, or whether large works are truncated.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the object ('the full public record of one work or place') and then enumerates contents. No filler, no restating of the tool name.

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?

With one required parameter and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the record's fields. What remains missing is the boundary against the get_item sibling and any error/truncation behavior.

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 id parameter is well documented in the schema itself (result id, page URL, or slug). The description contributes nothing further about accepted id formats or failure modes; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific resource (one work or place) and enumerates exactly what the record contains – episodes with links, key points, sources, article text – so an agent knows this is the detail-fetch, not a listing. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_item, whose name suggests overlapping behavior, leaving that ambiguity.

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 full public record of one work' implies this is the follow-up call after a search returns an id, but the description never says when to use it instead of get_item, search, or search_catalogue. Usage is inferable from the 'full record' framing rather than stated.

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