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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the output is untyped prose rather than a structured object, and ids must originate from search rather than be hand-constructed. It stops short of mentioning truncation, size limits, or pagination on long records.

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 core action and the search-pairing rule are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (prefix vocabulary, exclusion, return type). It runs slightly long at six sentences, but none are filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return shape ('prose in, prose out ... a readable record, not a typed object'). Combined with rich annotations, a single fully-documented parameter, and explicit sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100% and the schema already documents the single id parameter, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not: the two prefix namespaces ('product:<id>' or 'community:<id>') that determine which collection is queried, plus the provenance rule that the id must come from search output.

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 and resource ('Fetch the full text of one directory record') plus the scoping constraint that the id must come from search. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings get_product and get_community by contrasting bare-id structured lookups against prefixed-id prose fetches.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('call this after search, on the ids it returned, when the lightweight result is not enough') and an explicit when-not-to-use ('Do not call it with an id you constructed yourself or took from a URL'), naming the alternative tools for that case. Both the trigger and the exclusion are unambiguous.

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