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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behaviors. The description adds value by specifying the returned record is 'bounded', includes provenance and not_evaluated fields, and explicitly excludes raw file download, truth verification, company verification, and ranking claims – providing transparency about the tool's limitations beyond 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?

The description is two sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. The second sentence's long exclusion list is purposeful for disambiguation, though slightly dense; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 presence of an output schema and safety-covering annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, scope, and behavioral boundaries. Minor gaps include no mention of not-found behavior or how the two identifiers relate, but these are secondary for a simple single-record getter.

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 must compensate. It indicates the parameters are used as lookup keys ('by org_id and upload_id') but does not explain their meaning, relationship, or constraints beyond what the schema already encodes via names and length limits.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resource ('one bounded customer/solution-company submitted AI context record') identified by org_id and upload_id. It also lists what the tool does not return (no raw file download, no list-all, no unbounded export, no verification), clearly distinguishing it from broader retrieval tools.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you have both org_id and upload_id and need a single AI context record. The negative constraints establish boundaries (e.g., not for list-all or export), but no explicit when-to-use-or-avoid wording or named sibling alternatives are provided.

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