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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the result is bounded to one record, includes provenance and not_evaluated fields, and deliberately returns no file download, list, export, or verification claims. This aligns with and reinforces the non-destructive, read-only profile.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and key parameters. The exclusion list adds clarity and is directly relevant to preventing misuse, though it is slightly long; every part earns its place.

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 strong annotations, simple two-parameter schema, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral boundaries and the exact retrieval scope. The only notable gap is not explicitly connecting this tool to its siblings, but that is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 does identify both parameters as the identifying key for the record, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not elaborate on the semantics of org_id or upload_id beyond their names and their combined role in locating the record, so the compensation is adequate but not rich.

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'), identifies the exact resource ('one bounded customer/solution-company submitted AI context record'), and names the identifying parameters (org_id, upload_id). It also explicitly distinguishes itself by excluding list-all, bulk export, and verification/ranking claims, which separates it from broader sibling 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 description clearly implies the tool is for fetching a single, bounded record by a composite key and states several non-uses ('No raw file download, list-all, bulk export...'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide a when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use comparison, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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