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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that transcripts and PDF full text are omitted by default, that metadata flags (has_transcript/transcript_length, has_fulltext/fulltext_length) signal availability, and precisely how the returned window is computed. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information about return shape or pagination with no filler. It is a dense paragraph, and the pagination sentence is demanding to parse, but nothing 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?

For an 8-parameter read tool with default-suppressed large fields, the description covers the return shape, the omission-by-default behavior, the enabling flags, and the paging protocol. Even with an output schema present, the pagination contract would otherwise be ambiguous, and it is fully specified here.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine derivation semantics the schema lacks: the interaction between include_* flags, the offset/max_chars pair, how the window is sized against the metadata header, and the offset + *_returned_chars pagination rule. This is real added meaning rather than restating field docs.

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 ('Retrieve one AMIRA record') and immediately constrains the input source ('by an `id` from the search tool'). This clearly distinguishes it from the typed get_* siblings, since the agent knows this is the generic id-based fetch rather than a per-type getter.

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?

It tells the agent where the required `id` comes from (the search tool) and explains the opt-in workflow for large payloads, which is actionable context. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer get_research_item/get_video/get_podcast over this generic fetch, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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