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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description needn't restate safety. It adds value by disclosing the specific output fields (claim text, context, divisiveness index, lifecycle state, settlement history) and the 'Class H' qualification, which goes beyond the schema. It does not discuss error handling, but that is a minor gap given the read-only nature.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then a usage clause. No redundant words, every sentence earns its place. The structure is ideal: first states function, then provides selection guidance.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no enums, output schema exists). The description covers purpose, return content, and when to use it, while the annotations handle safety and idempotency. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without further clarification.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by clarifying that issue_id is the identifier of the specific issue to fetch, tied to the 'names or links a specific issue' context. It doesn't specify format, but for a single string parameter this is adequate and adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one Class H issue by id') and explicitly lists the returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_issues. The phrase 'by id' clarifies the retrieval mode, and 'full claim text... settlement history' gives a concrete sense of scope.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when the user names or links a specific issue and wants its detail rather than the whole list, or wants to check whether it has settled.' This contrasts with list_issues and names a specific alternative scenario, making it clear when to choose this tool.

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