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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the exact field set returned and the negative guarantee that no document text is included, which prevents a common mis-call. It stops short of any note on missing/deleted records or error behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences: the payload contents come first, then the usage and the boundary against alternatives. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the most decision-relevant information (what it does not return) is placed where it will be read.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it closes the one dangerous ambiguity (text availability) for a single-parameter read tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 a single required parameter whose format is fully documented ('LF- followed by 12 characters, e.g. LF-6e02fd648a12'). The description says nothing about lf_id, so the schema does all the work and the baseline 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('full catalogue record for one document') and enumerates exactly what the record contains (collection, entity, dates, page count, SHA-256, extraction status, source URL). It also distinguishes itself from get_document_text and fetch by stating it carries no document text, so an agent can pick it apart from siblings without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit use case ('check a document's provenance or details') and an explicit exclusion with the alternatives named ('It holds no document text; get_document_text and fetch return that'). The routing decision between this tool and its text-returning siblings is fully resolved in the description.

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