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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior: authentication via the recipient's configured bearer header, that the reference alone grants no access, and that expired, revoked, or deleted results are unavailable. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the critical auth caveat and the unavailability conditions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, this is largely complete: it covers auth, access semantics, and failure conditions. It could be improved by tying reference_id to the reference-creation flow, but nothing essential is missing for invoking the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The text refers generically to 'the reference' but never explicitly explains that reference_id is the token identifying the result or how it relates to create_result_reference. The pattern and property name carry most of the meaning.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Retrieve the full shared result' via a reference. It is distinct from create/revoke siblings by meaning, but it does not explicitly name or compare against them, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 context of use is implied: use this when you have a reference and need the shared result. It clarifies that the caller must possess the recipient's bearer header and that expired/revoked/deleted results are unavailable, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance.

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