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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a real trait: it refuses with a 'do_not_answer' signal when content is drifted or unverified rather than guessing. However, it does not describe the shape of a successful result (fields, citations, source versions) or what other failure states exist, which matters since no output schema is present.

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, no filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the refusal behavior as a follow-up. Every clause adds information the agent cannot get 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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the definition covers the operation and its key failure mode. The main remaining gap is how to obtain a fact_id and what a returned fact contains, which is significant for standing alone in a large pack-family of sibling tools.

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% and the single parameter fact_id is undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning to it — no format, no naming convention, and no hint that identifiers come from debtuk_list_facts, leaving the agent to guess how to construct a valid ID.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get one verified fact from the debtuk pack'), and 'one' implicitly separates it from debtuk_list_facts. It does not name the sibling tools explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should be used when it already has a single fact_id in hand and wants the full record. The description never says when to prefer debtuk_list_facts or debtuk_changes instead, nor where a fact_id comes from.

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