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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only which record types exist (mission cards, deployments, terrain, detachments, datasheets) and nothing about failure modes for an unknown id or the response shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, carrying the tool's purpose and its data-domain breadth. Slight jargon ('source-faithful') costs a point but nothing is wasted.

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 rich annotations, a 100%-documented one-param schema, and an output schema that carries return values, little is left for the description to do, and it covers what the record contains. The unresolved overlap with get_reference is the main remaining gap.

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% with a single required id parameter whose description already states it comes from search_reference or list_reference. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Returns) and resource (source-faithful structured record) and scopes it to records behind a search result. It does not explicitly contrast with the close sibling get_reference, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told.

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?

Phrases like 'behind a search result' imply it should be called after search_reference, and the id parameter description ties it to search_reference/list_reference. But there is no explicit when-to-use rule or exclusion versus get_reference or list_reference.

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