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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by explaining the sub-scores scale (0=best, higher=worse) and listing returned fields, but no additional behavioral traits 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 a single sentence with an example, front-loading key information. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by detailing what is returned (rating, inspection date, sub-scores, address, local authority, geocode). This is sufficient for a retrieval tool with a single parameter and clear annotations.

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?

Only one parameter (fhrsid) with schema coverage 100%. Schema already provides a description; description adds an example and context (from search), which is helpful but not essential. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it gets the full FHRS inspection record for one establishment by FHRSID, with specific details (rating, inspection date, sub-scores). It distinguishes from the sibling search tool by explicitly referencing uk_food_hygiene_search.

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?

Description indicates the tool is for retrieving details after a search (by FHRSID from uk_food_hygiene_search) and provides an example. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough for a single-purpose tool.

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