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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what the record contains (facts, notes, maker's own description, store link). It doesn't cover error behavior for an unknown id, but the enum constrains inputs.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and payload, followed by the usage cue. Every clause earns its place, with zero filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (facts, notes, description, store link), which an agent needs to set expectations. Complete enough for a simple single-lookup tool, though it could mention behavior on a missing id.

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 id parameter has an enum of bitbox/ledger/trezor, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the same ids (mildly redundant) but adds no new syntax or format meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb (Get) and resource (full sourced record for one hardware wallet maker by id), and even enumerates the valid ids. It clearly contrasts with search_hardware_wallets, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the sequencing: 'Use after search_hardware_wallets when a user wants details on a single wallet.' That gives clear when-to-use context relative to a sibling. It doesn't explicitly say when-not to use it, but the contrast with the search tool is implied.

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