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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the exact content returned (AI summary, full description, canonical URL) and the citation purpose, going beyond annotation coverage.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action and then lists all returned fields without unnecessary detail, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 simple fetch-by-id tool, the description is complete: it lists all returned fields, includes a specific use case (citation), and the schema covers parameter semantics. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the field enumeration in the description.

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?

There is only one parameter, id, and the schema provides full coverage, including its provenance from search tools. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (fetch one document by id) and lists the specific fields returned. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly by focusing on retrieval of a single item using an id, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for retrieving a specific document when the id is known, and the schema adds that the id comes from search_regulatory_changes or changes_since. It does not explicitly state when not to use other tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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