get_obligation_first_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds a genuinely useful semantic caveat ('A proceeding or allegation does not establish a determination') and links the schema/context, but says nothing about the read-only nature, error behavior when an ID is absent, or what constitutes a tombstone.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource in the first sentence, followed by compact reference links and one clarifying caveat. No redundancy, though the enumeration of kinds partly duplicates the schema's kind description.

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?

For a two-parameter, all-required read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the domain model but omits return shape, pagination, and failure modes. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, so both parameters (id, kind) are already documented in the schema, and the description only restates the kind/id framing. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds no format or validation detail.

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 ('Get') and resource ('generated Obligation-First ... record') and enumerates the five record kinds, which is more specific than a generic fetch. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_record, which likely overlaps, so the agent must infer the difference.

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 says records are fetched 'by kind and graph ID' but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over get_record (an obvious sibling), and no prerequisites. Usage is only weakly implied by the enumerated kinds.

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