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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds a payload inventory, which is mild value given an output schema exists, but says nothing about errors for missing ids or auth requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical listing of claim fields is dense but earns its space by previewing the response shape.

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 rich annotations, a fully documented single parameter, and an output schema covering return values, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is behavioral guidance on what happens when an id is not found.

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?

The single id parameter is 100% documented in the schema, including the hex pattern and its provenance from search_digest. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

"One digest item in full" names the specific resource and its scope (single item, full detail), and the enumerated payload (claims, evidence records, HL7 Jira statuses, canonical_url) makes it concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_digest, leaving differentiation to the id pattern.

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: the schema note that the id comes from search_digest hints at the search-then-fetch flow. The description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against search_digest or explain_finding.

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