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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds useful behavior: the id accepts aliases such as llms.txt or /.well-known/ard.json, and a miss returns the nearest ids rather than a bare error. It omits return format details and 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 tight sentences: the returned-field inventory is front-loaded, then id semantics and miss behavior follow. No filler and every clause adds information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the record's components, and the sole parameter's accepted forms and error behavior are both covered. An agent has enough to call this correctly without opening anything else.

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 0% — the schema only says id is a 1-120 char string — so the description carries the burden and does so well, explaining that id may be the file or path the standard is known by and giving concrete alias examples. This is meaningfully more than the schema offers.

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 ('Get one standard's full record by id') and enumerates exactly what the record contains (status, governance, version, spec URL, probe rule, evidence, disputes, summary, freshness). The emphasis on a single full record implicitly separates it from list/boolean siblings like search and has.

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 by 'by id' and the single-required-param schema, but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus siblings such as has (existence check) or search (discovery by attributes). No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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