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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the result is a 'complete bounded document' with revisions and attribution, and sections may withhold rules text, exposing textSources with a pinned upstream file and record id. That redaction-with-pointer behavior is exactly the kind of trait an agent cannot learn from annotations alone.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core identity (the document from search_reference) is front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by disclosing the textSources fallback rather than padding.

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 with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: provenance of the id, scope of the returned document, and the textSources edge case. It stops short of nothing essential, though it leaves the overlap with get_reference_record unexplained.

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% and the single required 'id' parameter is fully documented as the stable result id returned by search_reference. The description restates that the document originates from search_reference but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 and resource: it reads the complete bounded document previously returned by search_reference, including revisions and attribution. That clearly distinguishes it from search_reference and list_reference. However, it does not differentiate it from the similarly named sibling get_reference_record, leaving that ambiguity unresolved.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the document is 'returned by search_reference', so an agent can infer this follows a search. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of how this differs from get_reference_record or list_reference. The one conditional pointer (textSources when rules text is withheld) is useful but descriptive rather than routing guidance.

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