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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns 'full details' for a reference, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as response shape or data freshness; the lack of contradiction is notable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb, resource, lookup key, and example. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant filler or repetition of the title.

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, read-only lookup tool, the description, schema, and annotations are sufficient for correct invocation. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly connect to search/find siblings for the broader workflow, but 'full details' sufficiently conveys the return intent.

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?

The schema already documents the reference parameter at 100% coverage, but the description adds value by clarifying the lookup mechanism and providing a concrete format example, 'AB-2026-03908,' which helps the agent construct a valid parameter value.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Get full Alberta Purchasing Connection details by reference number.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_alberta_opportunities and search_alberta_opportunities, which are for discovery, by focusing on retrieval of a full record for a known reference.

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 usage when a caller already has a specific APC reference number, and gives a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the agent must infer the routing from sibling tool names.

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