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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it scopes the payload (methodology, limits, source links, fictional worked examples), asserts no user records are returned, and gives a citation instruction.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the retrieval action and its input source are front-loaded before the payload contents and the citation instruction. Every clause carries information.

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-structure explanation is not required, yet the description still summarizes the payload well. The only gap is that a single-enum, 0%-coverage parameter is left without any detail on valid values or failure modes.

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% and the single enum parameter is only named "id". The description compensates partially by explaining that the id originates from search, but gives no format, expected values, or error behavior for an invalid id.

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 ties it to the ID produced by the search sibling. It is distinguishable from search, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with review_agent_evidence, the other sibling.

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 phrase "by the ID returned from search" implies the search-then-fetch workflow, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over review_agent_evidence or what to do when the ID is unknown.

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