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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context: the specimen is 'published' and the 'carrier withheld,' indicating it is a controlled sample rather than a full record. However, it does not mention failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the name is not found), any permissions, or the response format. For a simple read operation, the disclosure is partial but not misleading.

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?

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with a clarifying clause. It is front-loaded with the action and includes only essential information. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain what the parameter means and what the return value looks like. It does neither. While the purpose is clear, the missing parameter semantics and absence of any output description leave an agent guessing about correct invocation and interpretation. The description is minimally adequate for a trivial retrieval but falls short of completeness.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'name' parameter at all. It is unclear whether 'name' refers to the specimen name, carrier name, or something else. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the only parameter ambiguous.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one published specimen'). It also clarifies the nature of a specimen ('a sample with the carrier withheld, not an issued record'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like carrier_record that return issued records. This gives a crisp purpose and differentiates it from alternatives.

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 when to use it: when you need a published specimen rather than an issued record. It provides the distinguishing context ('not an issued record') but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it. While it gives enough context to infer correct usage, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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