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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by disclosing that the full record includes the narrative only 'if consented,' which is a meaningful behavioral caveat for a complaint detail endpoint.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the conditional narrative detail is stated efficiently in the second sentence.

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 single-ID lookup tool with safe annotations, the description is largely complete: it names the required parameter, the return type ('full record'), and a key conditional field ('narrative if consented'). It does not describe error/not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and the single parameter is already described as 'CFPB complaint ID.' The tool description adds no additional format, source, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a single CFPB complaint'), and the lookup key ('complaint_id'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling search/aggregation tools by emphasizing 'single' and 'full record'.

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 conveys clear usage context: use this when you have a complaint_id and need the full individual record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5, but the intended use is evident.

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