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, which cover the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond that by disclosing that the output consists of works from fetch-verify-attest with source references, clarifying the nature of the data. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. The first sentence states what it does, the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 simple, parameterless retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers purpose and usage. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema handles that. It is complete for its complexity.

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 are zero parameters, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none to document, which 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('externally verifiable corpus tier'), and explicitly mentions 'works submitted for fetch-verify-attest with their source references.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling get_* tools like get_market or get_solution, which focus on different data.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when the user wants source material a validator can independently check rather than a claim that only this venue asserts.' This tells the agent exactly when this tool is appropriate and contrasts it with competing alternatives that return claims.

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