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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the record is 'reviewed' and includes a 'date checked,' signaling curated, freshness-tracked data. It does not explain error behavior for invalid ids, but that is a minor gap given the rich annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states purpose and enumerates return fields with zero filler. Every word 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?

For a simple read-by-id tool with complete parameter documentation and strong annotations, the description adequately explains purpose and return content. The only missing element is explicit routing guidance versus sibling search_programs, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 single 'id' parameter's format and examples are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is the correct baseline when structured data already does the work.

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 (returns) and a precise resource (one program's reviewed record), then enumerates the record's contents (offers, decision-makers, exclusions, sources, date checked). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_programs (multiple results) and compare_programs (comparison).

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 implies use when you have a program id and want its details, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. It never mentions search_programs as the way to find an id, leaving that inference to the agent.

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