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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' is largely redundant, but the description goes further in disclosing the return payload (license text link, original source for reference notes, attribution line). It does not cover failure behavior for an unrecognized ID, which keeps it below the top mark.

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 compact sentences with the resource, accepted inputs, and return values front-loaded before the redundant safety note. No filler, nothing buried.

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 usefully enumerates what comes back, and with a single parameter it fully explains accepted input forms. Only error/edge-case behavior (unknown or ambiguous ID) is unaddressed, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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%, so the description carries the parameter burden and does so well: it names the accepted identifier forms (note ID, fact ID, slug, old slug), including legacy slugs which the schema's bare string cannot convey. It stops short of stating format expectations for the 81-character limit, leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific resource (license and attribution for a note or fact) and precisely what it yields: the license, a link to its text, the original source, and a ready attribution line. That distinguishes it clearly from siblings like cite, get_fact, and read_note, which return content rather than licensing metadata.

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 by the purpose — use it when you need license/attribution for a specific item — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs cite or get_fact guidance and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent has to infer the routing decision from sibling names alone.

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