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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying what the response contains ('full shaped notice including parsed judgment/act/deregistration/persons detail'), which goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent know what to expect.

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 sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the provenance of the id and return-value detail are both compactly stated. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the source of the id, the operation, and the returned content. The annotations cover side-effect and safety characteristics, so nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage for the single 'id' parameter is 100%, and the schema already describes the format. The description adds semantic value by explaining where the id comes from (results of sibling BODACC tools) and that fetching it returns the full shaped notice, which helps an agent correctly supply the parameter.

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 specific action ('Fetch a single BODACC notice by its id') and a specific resource, and it distinguishes the tool from sibling search/list tools by noting that IDs are visible in bodacc_search, bodacc_company_events, and bodacc_insolvency_feed results. This makes the tool's role clear without needing to inspect other definitions.

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 when to use the tool: after obtaining a notice id from related BODACC listing tools. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of bodacc_search when you need the full notice detail', but the context provided is sufficient for an agent to infer the appropriate invocation scenario.

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