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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real payload context the agent could not infer: DAP Standard classification, status history, redaction status of fields, and source links with URLs. It does not cover not-found/error behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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?

A single dense sentence with the identity and scope up front, followed by the returned contents. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies enough: accepted id kinds and what the response contains. Only the miss/error path is unstated, which is a minor omission.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by decoding the id namespace (ct-, ser-, ent-, ev-) and tying each prefix to a record type. That tells the agent what a valid id should look like beyond the schema's generic 'A record id from a search...' line.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('one record in full by id') and enumerates the four record kinds by id prefix (ct-, ser-, ent-, ev-), which immediately separates this detail-fetch from the list/search siblings. An agent can tell it is a single-record retrieval, not a query.

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 is only implied: fetching one record 'by id' after a search or listing is the obvious sequence, but the description never says when to prefer this over search_compute_contracts, compute_market_events or list_compute_coverage, nor that an id must already be known. The note about id provenance lives in the schema, not the description.

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