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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the result is a 'Full canon record', but does not address side effects, authentication needs, error behavior, or response shape. For a fetch operation this is minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the purpose, the scope, and the exact accepted values, making it easy to scan and parse.

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?

The tool is simple: one required enum parameter and no output schema. The description says what is returned ('Full canon record') but not what that record contains or when to reach for this tool over siblings. This is adequate but leaves some context to inference.

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 100%, and the single 'name' parameter is fully defined by its enum and description. The description adds no new semantic detail about the parameter beyond restating the allowed values, so the baseline of 3 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Full canon record') and enumerates the exact protocol identifiers it applies to: ACM-SPARKS, SM-ECO-10060, and ACM-68000. It clearly differentiates from list_protocols and other sibling getters by indicating a single, full-record retrieval.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need the full canon record for one of the three named protocols. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer list_protocols or mention any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the title and sibling names.

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