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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: the refutation/limits section is 'always present' in the response, which is not visible in the schema or annotations.

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 are front-loaded with the operation, then pack only high-value details: what the returned claim includes and why to use it. There is no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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 read-only, idempotent get-by-id tool with an output schema present, the description covers the object, the response's special content, and the intended use cases. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description mirrors the schema's id format ('HE-CLAIM-001' or slug) but does not add extra semantics for locale beyond the schema's enum description.

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 ('Get') with a precise resource ('one claim by id or slug') and enumerates what is returned: the statement, what it rests on, structured sources, and limits/refutation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_claims and search tools.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases: citing the corpus honestly and checking whether a measured result confirms or falsifies a claim. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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