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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by characterizing the payload as a "complete bounded document" with source location, revisions and attribution — telling the agent this is the full record rather than a snippet, and that the response is size-limited.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the source of the id and the contents of the return in minimal words. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape need not be re-explained, and the description covers the input provenance. What is missing is disambiguation from get_reference_record — with a sibling that close, the definition should say how the two differ to prevent misselection.

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 single parameter's description ("The stable result id returned by search_reference") is essentially duplicated in the tool description. With the schema doing the heavy lifting and only one parameter, this is the baseline 3 — no added syntax, format or constraint detail.

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+resource ("Reads the complete bounded document") and ties it to the search_reference output via the result id, which clearly separates it from the search/list siblings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling get_reference_record, leaving that ambiguity for the agent to resolve.

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?

"returned by search_reference" implies the prerequisite workflow (search first, then fetch by id), which is useful usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the near-identical get_reference_record alternative, so tool selection is left partly to inference.

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