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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior beyond a simple fetch: it resolves referenced sources and returns them with tier and currency status. It does not mention auth, error cases, or side effects, but as a read-style 'return' tool, the disclosed output behavior is the most important part.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: the first states the overall scope (one item, all data), and the second adds the distinguishing detail about source resolution and tier/currency. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the agent will get back: item fields and resolved sources with tier/current status. It could mention error/not-found behavior, but for a simple single-item fetch, the essential calling information is present.

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?

There is only one parameter, id, and the schema already describes it fully with an example ('genzan-bcp'). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, but with 100% schema coverage, no compensation is needed.

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 clearly states the tool returns a single item's full set of data (要件・効果・期限) plus resolved referenced sources with tier and currency. It distinguishes itself from siblings like jhnrd_list_items (plural listing) and jhnrd_get_source (source-focused) by specifying singular item scope and source resolution behavior.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need everything about one item, including resolved sources. However, no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the agent must infer the distinction from the description alone.

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