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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals a critical privacy/security feature: the 'not found' response is identical for unknown grants and grants not open/visible, preventing information leakage. This is valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations would typically convey. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a simple fetch operation the core behavior is well covered.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and resource; the second adds essential usage constraint and edge-case behavior. Every clause contributes value, and the structure is front-loaded with purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, the source of the id, and the important not-found behavior for privacy. The only minor gap is not specifying what fields constitute a 'full record', but that may be assumed to be the grant object from search 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?

The schema description already covers the id parameter fully (UUID from prior search), so the baseline is 3. The main description repeats the prior-search requirement but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Thus, the description does not enhance parameter understanding further.

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 clearly states the verb 'return' and the resource 'full record for a single grant by id', which precisely defines the tool's function. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'search' (which returns multiple results) by emphasizing the single-record scope and the requirement for a prior search id.

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 explicitly says the id must come from a prior 'search' call, which guides when to use this tool. It also explains the 'not found' behavior for open/visible grants, providing context for interpreting results. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for other scenarios, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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