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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds non-redundant context: 'no key' tells the agent no authentication is required, and 'as text' plus 'full public detail' signals the return shape. It does not cover error behavior or payload size.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then supplies the id forms. The parenthetical glosses on each prefix cost some length but each earns its place by disambiguating valid ids.

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?

Single required parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, so the description carries only the burden of explaining inputs and safety. It does that well. Minor gaps remain around malformed or unknown ids and payload size, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 describes id, but the description goes well beyond it by enumerating the answer:, fund:, and concept: prefixes and by clarifying that full https://cymetica.com page URLs (including paths like /crypto and /answers/…) are valid. That is genuinely additive semantics not derivable from the schema.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the full text of a search result by id') and then enumerates the id namespaces it resolves. This clearly separates it from siblings like search, get_fund, and get_headlines_sample, which have narrower scopes.

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 phrasing 'by id' plus the enumerated id forms implies the intended workflow: take an id from search and expand it to full text. It also names URL inputs as an alternative path, giving clear context. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer a sibling such as get_fund over fund:<SYMBOL>.

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