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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond the annotations: it explains that records withholding rules text carry textSources pointing at a pinned upstream file and record id, telling the agent how to interpret a partial payload.

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, front-loaded with the core action and its payload scope. The category list is longer than strictly necessary given an output schema exists, but it aids selection, so it still earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return-value documentation is not required, and the description covers purpose plus the non-obvious textSources behavior. The remaining gap is routing versus get_reference, which is a meaningful but narrow omission for a single-parameter read tool.

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 parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema explicitly stating the id is 'returned by search_reference or list_reference'. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 and resource (returns the structured record behind a search result) and enumerates the record categories it can yield (mission cards, deployments, terrain geometry, detachments, datasheets). It does not name the sibling it competes with — get_reference — so the agent must infer the distinction from context.

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 'behind a search result' implies the id must come from search_reference, and the schema confirms this. However, the description never states when to use this tool versus the similarly named sibling get_reference, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would face here.

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