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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what is returned, including the conditional 'if one exists' for the controller link, which clarifies expected optional data.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's return contents. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple read-only tool with a single required ID, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could clarify behavior for missing IDs, but the output schema likely covers return structure, so this is a minor gap.

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%, but the single 'id' parameter is self-explanatory with a UUID format and pattern. The description reinforces that this id identifies one organic resource, providing enough semantic clarity for the only parameter.

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 verb ('Return') and precise resources: the intact unpaid imported record, source provenance, and a current verified-controller link. It clearly distinguishes this single-resource inspection tool from siblings like validate_organic_resource and compare_resources.

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 use for inspecting one organic resource by ID, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus alternatives such as validate_organic_resource or compare_resources. An agent must infer when this is the right tool.

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