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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses what each record carries (verbatim citation quotes, section locator, retrieval timestamp, source and record content hashes), the assertion_kind semantics, and hard limits (no individualised advice/diagnosis, copyrighted material metadata-only). That is exactly the extra behavioral context a caller needs.

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?

Long, but explicitly labeled (Purpose / Guidelines / Limits / Ex) and front-loaded so the agent gets the core action first. Density is justified by the domain-contract and assertion_kind detail, though a few clauses could be trimmed.

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, yet the description still outlines the richness of the returned record and the domain contract, covers id/name acquisition, language and format options, and states the domain's hard boundaries. Nothing needed to call 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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters (baseline 3), but the description adds real meaning: name acts as a keyword that returns a candidate id list on multiple hits, kind narrows the match, and include_domain_contract is tied to the specific contract contents returned.

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 precise verb and resource ('fetch one full record from the fitness safety-boundary domain') and enumerates the three record types (exercise, condition, exercise x condition boundary). It also clarifies the relationship to the sibling query_safety_boundaries, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where to get the id ('from query_safety_boundaries first') and when the name-keyword fallback applies ('when the match is unambiguous'), plus when to set include_domain_contract=true. It even gives concrete invocation examples.

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