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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing that personal details such as birth dates and home addresses are redacted from the response. It does not say anything about failure behavior for an unknown id or what the 'detailed content' consists of, keeping it short of 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?

Three short sentences: precondition and purpose first, privacy guarantee second, exclusion last. Each sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 idempotent reader with a fully described schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, input provenance, and the key response caveat (redacted personal data). No output schema exists, but the return shape is only loosely gestured at with 'detailed content', which is the remaining minor gap.

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% and the schema carries the format example, so the description only needs to orient the agent; it adds the useful provenance hint that the id typically comes from list_bodacc_notices. It does not restate the length constraints, but those are fully documented in the schema.

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 (retrieve detailed content) for a specific resource (a single BODACC notice identified by id), and implicitly contrasts with the list variant that produced the id. An agent can distinguish this from list_bodacc_notices or get_company 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 the positive precondition (you already hold a notice identifier, e.g. from list_bodacc_notices) and an explicit exclusion (do not use to look for notices without an identifier). That exclusion routes the agent to the sibling list tool rather than trying blind lookups here.

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