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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds that the record is 'canonical' and lists what it contains (statement, verdict, review date, evidence module, machine URLs), which is useful given no output schema, but says nothing about not-found behavior or what makes a record canonical.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the identifier-first construction and a parenthetical field list; nothing is wasted and the key action leads.

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 simple one-parameter lookup, the description compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating the returned record's components, and annotations cover the safety semantics. Only error/absence behavior and the slug-vs-claim-id ambiguity remain.

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 and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load. It clarifies the slug may also be a claim id, which adds meaning, but this conflicts slightly with the schema's slug-only pattern '^[A-Za-z0-9-]{3,110}$'. No format or validation guidance beyond that.

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+resource ('Get one canonical verification record') and enumerates the record's fields, which is concrete. The phrase 'one ... record ... by its slug' implicitly distinguishes it from search_gi_verifications' multi-result retrieval, though no sibling is named outright.

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 phrase 'by its slug or claim id' hints at identifier-based lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no named alternatives such as search_gi_verifications or resolve_gi_claim. The agent must infer the routing.

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