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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact: ownership is enforced and a foreign check_id raises an error instead of leaking data. It does not describe pagination or result-size behavior.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, leading with what the tool returns and following with the ownership constraint. The awkward line wrapping aside, every sentence carries information.

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 return values need not be explained, and the description covers the read-only nature plus the ownership/error constraint. The main gap is the absence of any pointer to how a check_id is obtained relative to prepare_factcheck or submit_findings.

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 0% for the single check_id integer, so the description must carry the load. It does add that check_id must belong to the authenticated user or an error is raised, which is real semantic value, but it never says where check_id originates or what form it takes.

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 names the resource (findings) and scopes it to one of the authenticated user's fact-check or continuity runs, which is specific enough to separate it from the write-oriented sibling submit_findings. It lacks an explicit verb ('Retrieve'), relying on 'Findings for...' to imply retrieval.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as submit_findings or ground_claim, and no prerequisite context (e.g., where a valid check_id comes from). The only conditional given is the ownership error case.

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