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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds useful return-content context (verbatim claim, grade, outcome, sources, seal hash). It does not describe auth needs or rate limits, but with annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the retrieval action and immediately followed by the record contents. Every element earns its place.

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?

Complete for a single-record lookup whose annotations already carry safety and idempotency, with a 100% covered schema and no output schema. The description tells the agent what id looks like and what comes back, which is everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Advisory id.' The description adds example id formats ('IA-RU-008', 'LA-011', 'IA-MKT-002') which provide helpful syntax context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ('Fetch one sealed forecast by its id') and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_sealed_forecasts' by emphasizing retrieval of a single record by id. The example id formats make the intended key type unambiguous.

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 is clear: use when you already have the advisory id. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-to-use-instead-of-search is provided, and no exclusions are stated. This is minimum viable routing guidance.

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