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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the return payload (fields, citation sentence, source_url) and instructs quoting the citation, which is genuine behavioral context. However, it says nothing about error handling for an invalid id, permissions, or rate 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by one actionable instruction. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return contents, and it does so thoroughly (job story, audience, offer, creative text, budget, metrics, conclusion, citation, source_url). It is short only on error/prerequisite behavior, leaving a small gap for a retrieval tool with no annotations.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single id parameter, and the schema already supplies the 'h-22788a' example format. The description repeats that example but adds no new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Full card of one hypothesis or test-wave summary by id') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It implicitly contrasts with search_hypotheses by being a single-record-by-id lookup, but never names the sibling.

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 implied rather than stated: the id-based retrieval pattern implies you first use search_hypotheses to obtain an id, and the schema confirms this. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative in the description itself.

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