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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely new behavioral context: the return includes the URL for citation, and 'Free' signals a no-cost operation useful for routing decisions. It does not cover truncation or failure behavior, so 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, front-loaded with the primary outcome (full text) followed by the citation affordance and cost hint. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 values need no prose explanation, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description supplies the key payload details (full text + citable URL) and cost. Only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior for an invalid or expired id.

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 param's schema text is 'An id from search', which the description merely echoes. Baseline 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameter and the description adds no syntax, format, or provenance detail beyond it.

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 (the full text of one document) and its scope ('from search'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'search' which returns many results. The verb is implied by the tool name rather than written out, but the object and scope are unambiguous.

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?

'from search' implies the intended workflow: call search first, then fetch by id. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no named alternative, and no guidance on what to do if the id is stale or the document is missing. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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