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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it lists the complete set of returned fields (label, category, Dublin Core metadata, context path, coordinates, temporal coverage, creator, tags, project, license, observations), which tells the agent what to expect from the response. It also explains the item_type routing behavior and the default ('subjects'). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core purpose, then lists return fields, then provides UUID sourcing and item type definitions. Every sentence adds information. It is slightly long, but the length is justified by the complexity of the domain (archaeological records with many fields). The structure is logical and scannable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 params, 1 enum, output schema present, annotations covering safety), the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, how to obtain the required UUID, what the item_type values mean, and the default behavior. The output schema exists, so return values need not be further explained. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the semantic meaning of item_type ('subjects' for excavated objects/finds/contexts, 'projects' for excavation projects, etc.) and by providing the example UUID format. It also clarifies that item_type defaults to 'subjects', which is not in the schema. This is above the baseline 3 because the description enriches the parameter semantics beyond 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('full archaeological record details for a specific Open Context item by UUID and type'), and enumerates the exact data fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like opencontext.archaeology.search and opencontext.archaeology.facets by focusing on item-level detail retrieval.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to obtain details for a specific item, and how to obtain the UUID from search results. It also enumerates the four item types and their meanings, which is essential routing guidance. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context signals and sibling list make the distinction clear, and the description's guidance on UUID sourcing is actionable.

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