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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds only that this returns the 'full' record (implying contrast with the search summary) and where the ID comes from; it says nothing about behavior on an unknown ID or the shape of the record.

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?

One tight sentence with the purpose front-loaded, plus a short Args block. The Args repetition of the schema field is slightly redundant but small; nothing extraneous otherwise.

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 getter whose annotations fully cover the safety profile and which has no output schema to document, the description is sufficient. The only soft spot is that 'retrieval record' is left as undefined jargon with no hint of its contents.

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 carries the burden, and it does explain the single parameter: it is the UUID returned by search_pubmed, giving both format and provenance. That is meaningfully more than the bare 'retrieval_id' field name in the schema.

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 ('Retrieve a full retrieval record by its retrieval_id'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling getters like get_evidence_collection or get_project_report, but the resource name is distinct enough to route correctly.

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?

Names the originating tool ('the UUID returned by search_pubmed'), which gives the agent a concrete prerequisite and workflow ordering. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative, but the context is clear for a keyed lookup.

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