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

With annotations covering only the safety profile, the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the call is paid, a missing id still incurs the cost, the response may be null, and returned content is flagged as untrusted data rather than instructions. The untrusted-content and cost warnings are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Four tight sentences with the cost caveat front-loaded ('Paid:') and the prompt-injection warning placed last where it will not be skimmed past. No sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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, so the description must describe returns, and it does: 'entry or null, plus untrusted_content and request_hash'. Combined with the cost and trust-boundary warnings, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does add meaning for both parameters: id's allowed provenance (publish_information entry_id or search_information entry id) and request_id's role as a UUID scoping a new operation. It stops short of describing the UUID format constraints or what happens on request_id reuse.

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 record') and pins the id's provenance to the exact sibling outputs ('publish_information entry_id or a search_information entry id'). An agent can distinguish this fetch-by-id tool from the two sibling tools without opening any schema.

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 places the tool correctly in the workflow (get ids from publish_information or search_information, then fetch here) and hints at request_id reuse when starting 'a new operation'. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it, e.g. when search_information alone would suffice, but the context is clear.

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