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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default behavior that excerpts are shortened and that full_text=true returns them unshortened, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown claim ids, result size, or limits.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by one routing sentence and two examples — nothing wasted. The examples are brief and demonstrate the default and full_text cases.

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?

With only two parameters and an output schema covering return shape, the description supplies what an agent needs: what it fetches, when to call it, and how the flag changes output. Only failure/limit behavior is left unstated.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's note that 'excerpts are short unless full_text is true' largely restates the schema's 'Return stored excerpts without shortening' and adds only marginal framing about the tradeoff.

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?

States a specific resource and outcome — provenance (the papers) behind a single claim — which is clearly distinct from list-style siblings like query_claims and get_contradictions. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but 'the papers behind it' makes the return concept unambiguous.

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?

'Use this after a search when you have a claim id' gives a clear triggering condition and prerequisite (a claim id from a search tool). No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, which keeps it 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.