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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read operation, what the response contains beyond a vague list of fields, whether authentication is needed, or how errors are handled. The phrase 'one entry with notes, price, and links' is the only behavioral hint and it is underdeveloped.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. 'Where to use them' is ungrounded and confusing, and the sentence does not front-load the tool's purpose. It lacks a clear structure that would help an agent quickly understand the operation.

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?

Despite the tool having only one parameter, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It does not define the resource, the meaning of the ID, or how this tool differs from surface_search. With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to provide the essential context an agent needs.

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 input schema has only an 'id' property with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what the ID identifies, what kind of value should be passed, or how it relates to the entry mentioned in the description. There is no compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 never states the primary action ('get', 'retrieve', 'lookup') and reads as a fragment: 'Where to use them — one entry with notes, price, and links.' It hints at a single entry but does not clearly explain that this tool fetches a surface by ID, nor does it distinguish it from surface_search.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus surface_search or any other sibling. No criteria such as 'use when you have an ID' or 'use search when you need to filter' are provided. The name implies ID lookup, but the description itself gives no usage direction.

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