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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns markdown, includes specifically named metadata fields (claim_type, editorial_pass, references, typed related-content edges, canonical citation URLs), and truncates long bodies unless full_body=true. It also defines claim_type values. This goes well beyond the schema, though it does not mention error handling or edge cases.

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 compact but information-dense. It packs a full sentence listing metadata fields and explaining claim_type, plus another on truncation. Every clause adds value, though it runs long enough that a 5 would require tighter phrasing. The structure is logical: primary purpose, then return format, then behavioral caveat.

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 complexity (four sections, metadata, language fallback, truncation) and lack of output schema, the description explains the return format and key behaviors sufficiently. It does not describe error cases or the exact shape of related-content edges, but for a fetch-one-entry tool it is reasonably complete and would guide an agent effectively.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining the structure of the returned metadata and the truncation/full_body behavior, which clarifies how the parameters affect output. It does not repeat parameter syntax but enriches the semantic context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('one Wheel of Heaven entry') with examples of the four content types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_source or get_passage by focusing on the unified entry object with its epistemic metadata.

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 establishes clear context: this tool fetches a single entry by section and slug. It implies usage when a complete entry with metadata is needed, and the schema notes 'find slugs via search_corpus' for discovery. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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