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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. Description adds what the record contains (explicit source-age warnings), which is useful beyond annotations, but omits error behavior when ID is stale or missing and snapshot semantics beyond the schema.

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?

One dense sentence listing exactly the output components, front-loaded with the core action; no filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained. Description plus annotations plus 100% param coverage makes the tool callable, though a note on missing/stale records would complete the behavioral picture.

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 the schema already explains 'id' and 'generation'. The description adds no information about parameter behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb 'Retrieve' with resource 'exclusion' and enumerated payload contents (agency explanation, restriction references, source evidence, source-age warnings, business links). Clearly distinguishable from search_exclusions (which returns IDs) and exclusion_changes (which tracks changes) by emphasizing full evidence retrieval.

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?

Implied usage via schema reference ('ID returned by search_exclusions or check_exclusions') hints at the follow-up workflow, but the description itself offers no explicit when-to-use vs exclusion_changes or detail.

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