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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only behavior. The description adds meaningful context by stating that the tool returns the 'full technical verdict, domain, and the resolution utility', giving the agent an expectation of the response shape. This supplements the annotations without contradicting them, though it does not disclose error handling or absence behavior.

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 two sentences long, with the primary action and return value in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. Every word is purposeful—there is no tautology, fluff, or repetition of the tool name. It is front-loaded and immediately useful.

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 read-only get-by-id tool, this description is complete. The tool has only one required parameter, an output schema is present to document return fields, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description adds the key selection context (specific settled Class M dispute vs. existence check) and disambiguates from sibling tools. Nothing critical 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?

The input schema provides only a single parameter `solution_id` with title 'Solution Id' and no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The tool description says 'by id' but does not explain the ID format (e.g., UUID, integer, URL-encoded) or provide examples. For a single obvious parameter this is minimally acceptable, but the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema-level detail, leaving the agent to infer the ID semantics.

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+resource: 'Fetch one resolution artifact by id', clearly identifying the tool's primary function. It further distinguishes the tool from sibling get_* tools by specifying the content (full technical verdict, domain, resolution utility) and the target (settled Class M dispute), making it distinct from get_challenge, get_settlement, etc.

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 second sentence provides an explicit use case: 'Use this when the user names or links a specific settled Class M dispute and wants the artifact itself, not just that it exists.' This gives clear context and implies a contrast with existence-checking tools, but it does not name an alternative tool or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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