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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the record is 'provenance-backed' and returned as a 'citable document', but says nothing about size, pagination, or failure behavior if the id is unknown. With annotations carrying the safety 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core action ('Fetch the full provenance-backed record') is front-loaded. Slightly terse given the alias relationship, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the missing framing that this is a provenance-backed citable document and the get_part-equivalent connector shape. The only real gap is the id format, which is minor for a one-parameter read tool.

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 0% for the single required 'id' parameter, but the description compensates partially by specifying the id is a 'search result id', which is meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema type. It does not state the accepted format of that id, so the documentation remains incomplete.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the full provenance-backed record for a search result id') and explicitly states the tool is an alias of get_part 'shaped to the search/fetch connector contract', which helps an agent distinguish it from get_part and search. It stops short of a fully crisp differentiation because 'alias of get_part' leaves the agent to infer the practical difference between the two at call time.

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 'for a search result id' implies the tool should be used after a search, and 'Alias of get_part' hints at an alternative, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or statement of when to prefer this over get_part directly. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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