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

Description reveals two distinct output modes (full JSON bundle vs human-readable Markdown) and enumerates bundle contents (every signal, per-page findings, provenance). Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=trueahan, with no contradiction. It doesn't cover errors/limits, but for a read-only getter this is acceptable.

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 sections: first sentence states action and output variants, second block gives concrete usage trigger and distinguishes from the summary the original call returned. No redundant text.

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-by-id tool with two params incl. one boolean, the description covers input source, id format, output formats and intent. No output schema exists, but return content is described. Minor gaps: no explicit error cases or auth, and 'when not to use' is only implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter explanation. warrant_id comes from earlier verify/check calls and has format warrant_<hex>; as_markdown switches the output format. Both parameters are fully explained.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), resource ('stored warrant'), parameter (warrant_id), and adds scope (full evidence bundle vs. summary). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like verify_document and check_document, which produce warrants rather than retrieve them.

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?

Explicitly says 'USE THIS WHEN you have a warrant_id from an earlier verify_document / check_document call and need the FULL evidence—rather than the summary'. Names the origin of the ID and the use case for as_markdown=True. This gives an agent clear selection criteria versus siblings.

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