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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: only unexpired records are returned, and the returned verification level/source validation must not be read as independent factual verification. That is a substantive interpretative constraint an agent would otherwise miss.

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 tight sentences, with the core operation front-loaded and the caveat second. No filler, though the second sentence is slightly tangential to the mechanics of calling the tool.

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-param read tool with no output schema, the description does useful work by naming what comes back (provenance, verification level) and warning about how to interpret it. The main gap is the absence of any return-shape or not-found/expiry behavior detail, which is minor here.

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 a single required 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description technically carries the burden. However 'id' is self-evident and the schema constrains it with a pattern and length bounds; the description adds no format or lookup detail. Adequate but no added meaning.

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 (Get) and resource (a record) and adds meaningful scope: the record is unexpired and comes with provenance and an explicit verification level. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_evidence or get_indicators, but the resource and scope are clear.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling retrieval tools (get_evidence, get_indicators, catalog). The second sentence is an interpretive caveat about verification levels, not usage guidance, so the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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