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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: SMI accepts the 'findings' include but never populates it, and the response omits the findings key entirely even when findings exist. It also discloses that id prefixes are stripped before the call. No contradiction with 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 with everything front-loaded: core purpose first, then routing guidance. Every clause earns its place—'Fetches...', 'Research Bundles are...', 'use this tool...', 'EX ids belong to export tools'—with zero filler.

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, two-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers all necessary context: id format variants, routing rules, the findings quirk, and the correct sibling for findings retrieval. Nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for both `id` (prefix meaning, routing) and `include` (accepted values, findings quirk). The tool description reinforces routing but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetches a single SMI deep report by id.' It further distinguishes this tool from the generic fetch tool by noting that Research Bundle ids also route here, and explicitly excludes EX ids as belonging to export tools, making sibling differentiation clear.

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?

It gives explicit, actionable guidance: use this tool for Research Bundle ids instead of constructing a research_bundle reference for the generic fetch tool, and EX ids belong to export tools. It also points to smi_get_report_findings as the correct alternative when findings are needed, leaving no ambiguity.

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