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

Annotations already convey readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful nuance: supplying the generation from search yields a consistent result, which matters in an open-world context. It does not explain error cases or what happens when generation is null.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the operational guidance about generation is front-loaded in the second sentence. It is appropriately terse, though the phrase 'known public identifier' is noticeably opaque.

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?

With zero parameter descriptions, no enums, and no output schema, the description alone is too thin for an agent to confidently populate collection and id. It covers the generation workflow but leaves essential invocation details and return expectations unstated.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It explains generation's source and purpose, but collection and id are left essentially undefined beyond the generic phrase 'known public identifier,' leaving required parameters under-specified.

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 states a concrete action ('Retrieve') but the object is framed as 'a known public identifier,' which is vaguer than the title's 'federal record.' It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like document or search, and the resource being retrieved is only indirectly implied.

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 phrase 'Supply generation from search for a consistent result' gives a useful situational cue: use detail after a search and pass the generation value. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use detail, nor does it name an alternative tool for lookup-style tasks.

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