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

Annotations carry only readOnlyHint=true and a short title. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the tool returns estimated and data-quality flags, only includes GPU inventory where disclosed, and explicitly does not compute BIS ownership-chain exposure. It conveys the tool's limitations and data caveats without contradicting the annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a concise returns list, then two clear routing statements. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and there is no wordy filler or redundancy with the schema.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return payload, and it does by enumerating operator, owner, capacity, GPU inventory, location, status, source, data-quality flags, and more. It also handles the ID-resolution prerequisite, alias options, and the division of labor with adjacent tools. Nothing needed for correct invocation or basic interpretation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already fully explains facility_id, its alias relationships, the canonical ID format, and the 'supply exactly one' rule. The description largely repeats these details and adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Fetch complete details for a single Scrutica facility by canonical ID', identifying both the resource and the access pattern. It then enumerates the return fields, and the final lines distinguish the tool from related sibling tools such as scrutica_query_export_controls and scrutica_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?

Explicit routing is provided: 'Resolve facility IDs first via scrutica_search' and for BIS Entity List designations, use scrutica_query_export_controls instead. The description also explicitly states what this tool does not compute (ownership-chain BIS exposure), giving concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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