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 by structured data. The description adds that the response includes the document text plus a clino.ch or official URL for citation, but since an output schema exists this return-shape detail is largely duplicative and no auth, rate-limit, or failure behavior is disclosed.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads what is returned and follows with the id examples. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical id list repeats information already in the schema.

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 a rich annotation set, a 100%-covered single-parameter schema, and an output schema that presumably documents the returned document object, the description covers the essential framing an agent needs. The only genuine gap is not routing the agent away from the structured-data siblings.

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 100% and the single `id` parameter already carries a description with the same example ids (canton/ZH, guide/en, source/nav-ungelernt) the prose repeats. The description therefore adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline case.

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 resource and scope: the full text of exactly one document, identified by a document id. It ties itself to the `search` sibling as the id source, but does not distinguish itself from other read-style siblings like get_canton_rules or get_employer_guide, which return structured rule data rather than raw document text.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'returned by search' tells the agent the id must originate from the search tool, which is genuine workflow guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g. 'use get_canton_rules for structured rules instead of fetching the raw doc').

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