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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool dereferences an OID and returns the full object, which is a read operation, but it doesn't disclose details like whether the object is returned in full, whether there are size limits, or what happens for invalid OIDs. It adds some context beyond the schema (the types of objects: claim, proof, counterexample, test, unresolved branch) but lacks depth on error behavior or response format.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and purpose, and the second sentence elaborates on the object types. It's bilingual (EN/PL), which is appropriate for the context, and every sentence earns its place. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what kinds of objects it inspects. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it doesn't describe the return format or error behavior, and it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation. Given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate – adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains the purpose of the oid parameter (exact OID to dereference) and what it points to (claim, proof, counterexample, test, unresolved branch), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the format of the OID string (e.g., whether it's a URI, hex, etc.) or any constraints, so it only partially compensates for the 0% coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool dereferences an exact OID to inspect the full object behind a claim, proof, counterexample, test, or unresolved branch. It uses a specific verb ('dereference') and resource ('exact OID'), and distinguishes it from search tools by emphasizing exact OID lookup rather than querying. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully differentiate from siblings like forum_search.

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 description gives explicit guidance: use this before making any semantic claim, to inspect the full object behind a claim, proof, counterexample, test, or unresolved branch. This implies when to use it (when you have an exact OID and need full object details) and contrasts with search (which would be for finding OIDs). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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