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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: it discloses that media candidates are third-party and never hosted by Asha, that graphic or ungraded content requires explicit consent before loading, and that a 404 means 'not published' rather than 'does not exist.' These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond schema, especially the consent-gating and 404 semantics.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads purpose and payload, the second covers media-gating behavior, the third covers error semantics. Every sentence earns its place and the most critical operational facts (consent, 404 meaning) come quickly.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must explain return content, behavior, and error handling — it does all three. It states what the response contains, how media behaves, and how to interpret a missing ref. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% — the schema already documents ref as a 'Stable public ref, e.g. gl-2810.' The description reinforces the example and adds the nuance that an unresolved ref may simply mean the record hasn't cleared editorial review. This is marginal added meaning, so the baseline 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?

The description identifies a specific resource (a single Palestine evidence record), the lookup key (stable ref, e.g. gl-2810), and the record's contents (categories, incident links, related records, media candidates). It distinguishes itself from siblings like palestine_evidence_search and palestine_evidence_health by being the point-lookup variant. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch', which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 context is implied: since lookup is 'by its stable ref,' an agent can infer this tool is for when a ref is already known, whereas palestine_evidence_search is for discovery. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are given, leaving the choice between this tool and its search/health/taxonomy siblings to inference.

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