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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the full response shape, the not_found/not_solved variants, and the critical behavioral note that a missing or unsolved problem is a normal result and should not be retried. This adds meaningful context the annotations don't provide.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, addressing syntax, return format, and edge-case semantics are all covered with no filler. The critical 'do not retry' guidance is delivered succinctly.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully documents the return values and both found and not-found cases. It also covers the mutually exclusive parameter usage, making the tool safely callable without additional context.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining that label is an alternative to paragraph + number, and by clarifying accepted spoken/written forms such as '1.12', '1-12', and '1 12'.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('One solved problem, in full'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the list/search siblings by focusing on a single solved problem retrieval.

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 description provides clear guidance on how to address a problem: either with paragraph + number or with a label, including accepted spoken forms. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the exact-lookup context is clear.

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