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 profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context the annotations cannot: the digest proves snapshot integrity and not factual truth, and the snapshot is only available for a record that is currently available. That constraint on availability is useful behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, no waste, and the most important scoping fact (snapshot plus digest for an available record) is front-loaded before the integrity caveat.

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 structure need not be explained; the description nonetheless names the returned artifacts (snapshot, digest). The main remaining omission is what the caller should do when the record is no longer available, but for a one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema this is close to complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already documented in the schema (record id from a DatoQA data response, including the accepted pattern). The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource pair: retrieve the source JSON snapshot plus its SHA-256 digest for a record. It is meaningfully distinguishable from the sibling get_record (this returns provenance/evidence, not the record payload), but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no alternative is named; an agent must infer from the word 'evidence' and 'currently available' that this is the provenance/verification path rather than the normal data-retrieval path. Relative to get_record, which presumably serves the same record space, this is a real gap.

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