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

The annotations already certify this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world call. The description adds useful non-annotation context: the reference contains methodology, limits, official source links, and fictional worked examples, and it explicitly says 'no user records,' which matters for privacy. It also gives an action instruction (cite the canonical URL), rounding out the behavioral picture.

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 three tight sentences: purpose first, then content disclosure, then an actionable instruction. Every sentence adds information, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter, read-only fetch tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies everything the agent needs: it identifies the resource, the source of the ID, the nature of the returned content, and a citation requirement. The absence of explicit sibling routing is minor given the simple operation and available annotations.

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?

There is one parameter, id, and the schema provides only a bare enum value ('compute') with zero description coverage. The description compensates by saying the ID comes from search, which tells the agent where to obtain a valid value. It does not explain the enum constraint or any format details, so the semantic coverage remains partial.

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?

States the exact verb (Retrieve) and resource (a public tool reference) and scopes it to an ID returned by search, which cleanly differentiates it from the sibling search tool. The mention of content (methodology, limits, sources, examples) further clarifies what kind of reference is being fetched. It does not name compare_compute_costs, but that sibling serves a different purpose, so the risk of confusion is low.

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?

Tells the agent to call this after search and to use the ID that search returned, establishing a clear workflow context. It does not spell out when not to use the tool or explicitly route cost-comparison queries to compare_compute_costs, so it stops short of the highest bar.

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