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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds real value by warning that synthesized identifiers (URLs/slugs/titles) will fail and that generation pins a consistent snapshot, but it says nothing about what happens on a stale generation or missing record.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the identity constraint is front-loaded and the optional consistency parameter follows. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description needs only to cover the call contract, which it does: where identifiers come from and why to pass generation. Minor omission is failure-mode guidance for stale generations or unknown IDs.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the constraint against URLs/slugs and the snapshot purpose of generation. The description restates those same semantics rather than adding new detail, so it lands at the baseline.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource combination ("Retrieve a public record") reinforced by the title "Read a federal record." It is distinguishable from the search-based siblings because it describes a single-record fetch, though the generic tool name "detail" needs the description to carry that distinction.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition that collection and id must come from a prior search call, and explicitly forbids page URLs, titles, or slugs. It does not name a specific alternative sibling, but the search→detail workflow is made unambiguous.

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