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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying it returns the complete notice as plain text and enumerating the fields included for recalls, plus issue date, category, and withdrawal notice. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently enumerates the return contents. The field list is somewhat long but every item adds useful information for an agent deciding whether this tool supplies the needed 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?

For a single-parameter detail-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains where the data comes from, how to identify a valid input, and what the response contains across recall and non-recall cases. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 is 100%, so the schema already documents the single url parameter clearly, including an example. The description adds only minor value by noting the URL/path comes from mhra_safety_alerts, but that relationship is also implied in the tool description.

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 a specific action and resource: it returns the full text of one MHRA safety alert or recall from GOV.UK. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool by explicitly referencing the URL/path returned by mhra_safety_alerts.

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 implicitly gives usage context by stating the input is the alert URL or path returned by mhra_safety_alerts, signaling that this tool is for the follow-up detail step after a listing call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the sequencing guidance is clear enough.

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