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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the payload (methodology, limits, source links, fictional worked examples), explicitly stating "no user records," and instructing the caller to cite the canonical URL.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by payload contents and the citation obligation. No filler or restatement of the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description covers safety, payload, and the citation requirement. The only remaining gap is error handling for an invalid or stale ID, which is minor.

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 0% for the single `id` parameter. The description partially compensates by explaining the ID's provenance ("returned from search"), but the schema's only permitted enum value ("disclosures") is never explained, so the parameter is not fully characterized.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Retrieve a public tool reference") and distinguishes itself from the sibling search by tying the argument to "the ID returned from search." An agent can tell what this does and how it relates to search without opening either schema.

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 makes the usage context explicit: it is the follow-up call to search, consuming an ID that search produced. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use case or contrast with compare_rwa_disclosures, so it falls short of a 5.

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