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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does valuable work by disclosing a refusal path (do_not_answer) for drifted or unverified facts, which tells the agent the tool will not fabricate. It says nothing about permissions, latency, or the shape of a returned fact, so the disclosure is partial rather than rich.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the safety guarantee. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back; it only says 'one verified fact' and the refusal case. Combined with unexplained fact_id semantics, an agent can call it but cannot predict the response structure or how to obtain a valid ID.

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 0% and the description adds nothing about fact_id — no format, no example, no indication that IDs come from bereavementuk_list_facts. For a single-parameter tool this is the main gap; the description should explain where a valid fact_id comes from.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one verified fact from the bereavementuk pack.' An agent can tell it retrieves a single fact rather than a list, distinguishing it implicitly from bereavementuk_list_facts and bereavementuk_changes. It does not explicitly name those siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need one specific fact by ID rather than a listing or a change history. The description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing such as 'to discover IDs, use bereavementuk_list_facts first'.

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