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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: the record's lifecycle state ('A withdrawn record says so') and the shape of the returned receipt. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or errors, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then progressively fills in return content and id provenance. The long prefix enumeration is dense but load-bearing for correct invocation; nothing is wasted, though the single paragraph could be split for scanability.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the receipt's contents, which roughly substitutes for one. Combined with the id-provenance routing and the withdrawn-record note, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only exact field names and error behavior are absent.

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 documents the id pattern, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by enumerating the accepted type prefixes (ship:, signal:, abi:, impl:, lock:, source:, claim:, state:, method:, sourcechange:, security:), giving meaning the regex alone does not convey.

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 ('Open one published record by its typed id') and details what the result is ('a receipt: what it claims, its source URL, when it happened at what precision, when HEY knew, how it is backed'). This distinguishes it from lookup/search siblings by framing the tool as a single-record receipt fetch.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to where ids originate — get_changes, get_project_timeline, explain_fact, and the snapshot — which tells the agent when this tool is the right next step. It does not state when NOT to use it versus explain_fact or ask_hey, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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