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

The read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile is already covered by annotations, so the description carries less burden here. It adds that the operation returns exactly one presentation and that offers are tenant-scoped ('tenant is a parameter'), which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The dense parenthetical enumeration of identifier formats and the clipped trailing field list are efficient but slightly harder to parse than a more structured phrasing would be.

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?

The main identifier parameter and the returned record shape are well covered, and an output schema is present. However, decision_id semantics are missing, tenant behavior is only partially explained, and no guidance is given on failure or unauthorized lookups, leaving the overall picture slightly incomplete.

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 for the parameters. It significantly clarifies presentation_id by listing seven accepted identifier formats, and it mentions tenant, but it leaves decision_id completely unexplained and does not clarify what tenant controls beyond offers.

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 names a specific resource ('one authorised presentation by id') and enumerates the accepted identifier formats, so the agent knows exactly what the tool fetches. Listing the returned fields (brand, strength, form, route, device, pack, holder, status, offers) differentiates it from siblings such as get_price, get_availability, and get_label_and_indication.

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?

The description implies the trigger case: use this when you already have a presentation/package identifier from one of the listed jurisdictions and need the full catalogue record. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so the routing guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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