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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the retrieval is exact-match on a record ID (no fuzzy lookup) and the answer is the 'published' variant, which implies unpublished or draft findings are not reachable this way.

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 tight sentences: the first covers the action, input and source; the second covers the payload. Zero filler and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value list is not strictly necessary, and the annotations plus single documented parameter leave little an agent must infer. The only unfilled gap is failure behavior for a stale or malformed record ID, which is minor for a read-only exact 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the record_id pattern and the 'Do not invent an ID' warning. The description reinforces provenance ('returned by search_findings or compare_products') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (one exact finding) with an explicit scope qualifier ('one exact'). It also names the two sibling tools that produce the required ID, so an agent can place it relative to search_findings and compare_products without opening either schema.

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?

'using a record ID returned by search_findings or compare_products' establishes the prerequisite and the correct upstream workflow, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs. It stops short of stating what to do when no ID exists or when to prefer a fresh search, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule set.

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