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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing side effects or permissions. It says 'Retrieve' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or is non-destructive.

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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 there is no output schema, the description implies that the tool returns the requested record, which is sufficient for the simple use case. However, it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., not found) or response format, leaving a small gap in completeness.

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 the context that the 'record_id' parameter is a record identifier, which is already evident from the name and pattern. It doesn't provide additional details like the format's meaning (QFR prefix, hex length) or the source of the ID, so it adds some but not much value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Retrieve') and the target ('one QFR public record by record ID'). It is distinct from sibling tools like qfr_search and qfr_stats, which likely handle different operations.

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 description implies usage when you have a specific record ID, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over the alternatives (e.g., 'use qfr_search to find records by criteria'). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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