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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about what happens when the province/year combination has no record, and no note on required identifier form. With annotations carrying most of the load, 3 is appropriate.

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?

One tightly written sentence with the key scoping facts front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a 0%-coverage schema, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations gap to fill, yet the description leaves the identifier format for province_code and the absent-record behavior undefined for a tool whose only failure mode is a bad code. For a two-parameter lookup this short a description is borderline inadequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not: 'specific province' does not clarify whether province_code is a BPS numeric code, a name, or a slug, nor whether year is a calendar year or a budget year. The only added meaning is that both are single-value selectors, which is already evident from the required list.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get a single UMP record') plus the two scoping keys (province and year), so the agent knows exactly what comes back conceptually. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tools ump_by_province or ump_list, leaving the boundary between single-record and list/province lookups unstated.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (ump_list, ump_by_province) that an agent would otherwise have to disambiguate by name alone. The only implied guidance is that this is the single-record variant, which the agent must infer.

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