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 safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds genuinely valuable epistemic context beyond the annotations: that the digest proves snapshot integrity, not factual truth. It stops short of saying what is returned or what happens for an unavailable record.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, with the integrity caveat placed immediately after. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly names what comes back (snapshot plus digest), which is the key return-value information. The remaining gap is behavioral: what happens when the record is not 'currently available' is never explained.

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?

There is exactly one parameter (id) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of documenting it. It never mentions what the id refers to, where it comes from, or what forms it takes, leaving the single parameter entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and a specific pair of resources (source JSON snapshot and SHA-256 digest) scoped to a record, which is more precise than a generic fetch. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_record, so the agent must infer the split.

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 phrase 'for a currently available record' implies the tool only applies to currently available records, which hints at a precondition. However, it never states when to reach for this versus get_record, and the consequence of the record not being available is left unstated.

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