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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, open-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the record is public (no auth implied) and the source labels are attribution rather than independent corroboration, which is a meaningful data-reliability caveat. It still omits not-found/error behavior and rate limits.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the action, scope, and return contents; the second delivers a non-obvious interpretive warning. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 compensates by listing the fields the record contains, and the annotations cover the safety profile. It is nearly complete for a simple single-record lookup, missing only failure/error behavior for an unknown or malformed ID.

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 required parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema itself supplies the accepted formats (IR-2026-0253 or hex hash) plus a validation pattern. The description only restates 'published ID' and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Read one public Voidly incident record by published ID') and enumerates the returned content (status, incident dates, source labels, measurement count). This clearly separates it from siblings like voidly_incident_stats and voidly_measurement_summary, which aggregate rather than fetch a single record.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'by published ID' framing — call it when you already have a specific incident ID — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. An agent must infer the selection rule from the description's scoping alone.

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