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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the exact returned fields (inputs, outputs, latency, price, provenance, status, failure categorization) and the API-key exemption for free-tier records.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return contents, use cases, and an access note. Every sentence adds information without repetition.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates what is returned, and it covers the relevant auth nuance. It does not discuss retention limits or error behavior when an ID is not found, but it is otherwise complete 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as the transaction ID returned from strale_execute. The description reinforces the ID's origin but adds no syntax, format, or lookup constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (a past execution record by transaction ID), and explicitly ties it to the sibling strale_execute by saying it lets you inspect what a previous call returned. An agent can distinguish it from strale_execute and strale_search without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use cases: inspecting a previous strale_execute result, debugging failures, and building an audit trail. It also notes free-tier access without an API key. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or an alternative for broader searching, but the context is strong.

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