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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description adds genuinely new context: the digest attests snapshot integrity only, not factual truth, and the record must be 'currently available' (i.e. still retained).

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the retrieval scope leads and the important integrity caveat is attached immediately afterward.

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, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The only meaningful omission is disambiguation from get_record, which would help an agent choose between two similarly named retrieval tools.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already explains that the id comes from a DatoQA data response and returns the retained snapshot. The description adds little beyond that baseline, though 'currently available' reinforces the retention precondition.

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 and a precise resource: the retained source JSON snapshot plus its SHA-256 digest. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling get_record, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to call.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'for a currently available record' signals that the record must still be retained, and the integrity-vs-truth caveat hints at provenance use cases. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use rule and no alternative (e.g. get_record) is named.

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