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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds useful depth context — that this returns the *full* dossier including editorial history and citations — signaling completeness relative to thinner siblings. It still says nothing about missing-id behavior, auth, or response shape.

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 compact sentence/fragment with the scope signal ("Full dossier") front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the fragmentary phrasing costs a little clarity.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the job of describing return contents, and it does list the dossier's sections reasonably well. However, it is silent on the one input parameter's format and on lookup-failure behavior, leaving gaps for a 1-param retrieval tool.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the description must carry the burden and it does not: it never mentions that the id is a slug, its pattern, or its length limit. The agent must reverse-engineer parameter meaning entirely from the schema's regex.

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 enumerates what a dossier contains (evidence states with sources, drone types, timeline, editorial history, citation), which implies a full incident record retrieval, but it never states the verb+resource directly — "Full dossier" is a content list, not a statement of what the tool does or which incident it acts on. It also does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like search_incidents or get_drone_type.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus search_incidents (list/query) or get_drone_type. There is no statement of prerequisites, no exclusions, and no indication of when a full dossier is preferable to a lighter lookup.

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