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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the id format but nothing about lookup failure behavior or output shape; with annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and includes the id examples inline. No wasted words, though the examples could be slightly clearer about the prefix scheme.

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 one-parameter read-only fetch with no output schema, the description supplies the essential id format. It does not describe not-found behavior, but annotations cover safety and no return-value detail is strictly required.

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% and the schema only says 'string', so the description must compensate. It does so by giving two concrete id formats ('product:18', 'blog:<slug>'), which is the key missing information, though it may not enumerate every valid prefix.

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 ('Full text of a result') and the resource ('from search, by id'), and gives concrete id forms. It implies differentiation from siblings like get_product and search, but does not explicitly state what makes it distinct from get_product, which also returns product content.

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 phrase 'from search' implies this is used after a search call, which is a reasonable hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of alternatives like get_product, and no guidance on when an id is unavailable.

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