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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world semantics, so the description isn't needed for the safety profile. It earns credit by disclosing data-quality caveats the annotations cannot: that complaints are unconfirmed, that coverage and fine data vary by source, and that related copies are included. It omits any not-found or error behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and lookup key, followed by two caveats that each carry real decision value. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 does enough by naming the included fields (source status, related copies) and warning about source-dependent coverage. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient; a note on what a missing UUID returns would close the gap.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema already declares format=uuid, so the description's 'by UUID' adds little beyond structured data. It does clarify that the record bundles 'source status and related copies', which hints at what a lookup returns, but not what the identifier itself means or where to obtain it.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get a violation or complaint') and pins the lookup key ('by UUID'), which separates it from a search-style sibling. It also states what the payload includes ('source status and related copies'). It stops short of naming the search_violations alternative, so sibling differentiation rests on the 'by UUID' phrasing rather than an explicit contrast.

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?

The description gives interpretive guidance ('A complaint is not a confirmed violation', 'Coverage and published fines vary by source') which helps the agent frame results, but never states when to choose this over search_violations. Usage is implied by the UUID lookup rather than stated.

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