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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds that the tool returns methodology, limits, official source links and fictional worked examples, contains no user records, and that the canonical URL should be cited. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the content and expected usage.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: the action, the contents, and the citation instruction. The key action is front-loaded, and there is no redundant 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?

With an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what the tool returns, what it does not contain (no user records), and how to use the result (cite the canonical URL). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that 'id' is the ID returned from search and refers to a public tool reference. The enum values are already in the schema, and the description tells the agent where to get the ID rather than how to construct it, which is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('public tool reference'), and how to obtain the identifier (from search). It also enumerates the contents (methodology, limits, official source links, fictional worked examples), which distinguishes it from a generic fetch and from sibling 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?

The description clearly implies the workflow: call search first to get an ID, then fetch the reference with that ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select this tool correctly. The note 'no user records' also steers away from misuse.

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