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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: superseded records are returned and retained byte-identical. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 filler and front-loads the core purpose. The phrase 'the audit trail, retained byte-identical' is slightly awkward but still compact and informative.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent getter with an output schema and a precise record_id pattern, the description covers the essential behavior including the superseded-record nuance. Domain terms like RCO and audit trail are not expanded, but the schema and simple scope make this adequate.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, simply stating that the parameter is a record_id identifying an RCO. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the detailed pattern in the schema already defines the expected format thoroughly, compensating for the missing parameter description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return'), names the resource ('RCO by record_id'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('including superseded records'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_issuers, publish_record, and resolve_compliance.

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 intended use is implied by the phrase 'by record_id', but the description never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no explicit guidance about sibling tools, so the agent must infer usage context from the tool name and description.

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