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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only). It only states the output is a 'full canon record' without mentioning side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too brief and could benefit from a bit more structure or context.

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 simple retrieval tool with a small enum parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain the content of a 'canon record' or the implications of the return data.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already defines the parameter and its enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.

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 clearly indicates the tool returns a 'full canon record' for specific protocol names, but the verb 'get' is implied rather than stated. It distinguishes from siblings by naming specific protocols, though not explicitly comparing to list_protocols.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_protocols or get_header_canon. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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