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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the tool returns downloadable files with direct PDF links, filename, size, and format, and that it can reveal available translations. This goes beyond the structured annotation information without contradicting it.

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 no filler. It front-loads the core action and outcome in the first sentence, then adds the usage workflow in the second. Every clause earns its place while keeping the description compact.

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, read-only, idempotent tool, the description supplies the essential context: what it returns, when to use it, and how it fits into the search-to-retrieve workflow. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the description's clear statement about downloadable files and record contents.

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 100%, and the schema already documents that item_id is 'The item_id returned by who_iris_search.' The description does not add new parameter-level semantics but does reinforce the workflow connection to who_iris_search, which is mildly helpful. This matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 verb and resource: 'Get the full record for one WHO publication including its downloadable files.' It also differentiates the tool from its obvious sibling, who_iris_search, by positioning this as the follow-up that retrieves the full record and files rather than performing a 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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use after who_iris_search to obtain the actual document, or to check what file formats and translations a WHO publication is available in.' This provides clear workflow context, though it does not spell out when not to use it or name a direct alternative.

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