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

Despite no annotations, the description provides clear behavioral context: it is a read operation that returns entity details for a given id, with specific return types for each entity. No side effects are mentioned, which is appropriate for a fetch. The description adequately compensates for lack of annotations.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides details on accepted formats and return types. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to elaborate on return values in detail. It succinctly covers the entity-specific return information. The single parameter is fully documented in both schema and description. The tool is simple and the description is complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the one parameter 'id'. The description adds further context on valid formats and how they map to different entities, but the schema already describes the id format. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate, with slight additional value.

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 tool fetches the full document for a search result id, and specifies the format of IDs and the return types for each entity (tokens, programs, pools). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' which returns a list of results.

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 explicitly says the id comes 'from the search tool', guiding the agent to use search first. It also details the accepted id formats (token:<chain>:<address>, program:<chain>:<address>, pool:<address>), which helps in correct usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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