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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral content – ids are globally unique across collections and the result includes sources and certification – but says nothing about what happens when the id is unknown, whether access is restricted, or how large/heavy the response is.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then examples, then the disambiguation rule. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the id contract, cross-collection scope, and roughly what the payload contains (sources, certification). It would be complete with a note on not-found behavior or pagination, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter already has an example, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by decoding the id prefixes (OK-PERMIT = permit, OK-ROOF = insurance/roofing fact), which is semantic meaning the schema does not supply.

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?

Specific verb (Get) plus resource (one certified record) with explicit scope (by record_id, across either collection since ids are globally unique). Concrete id examples and the parenthetical label of each id family make it immediately distinguishable from search_records and the history siblings.

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 names a concrete alternative and the condition that selects it: 'To look a permit up by its permit number instead, use search_records with permit_number.' That is an explicit when-to-use-else routing instruction, not an implied one.

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