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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining that the markdown rendition is identical to what the URL serves, guaranteeing quote consistency. It also discloses an important nontrivial behavior: a retired building reports its retirement with its area rather than silently redirecting. This is exactly the kind of context annotations alone cannot provide.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the core operation, the second explains the markdown guarantee, the third gives workflow context and alternatives, and the fourth captures an important edge case. The description is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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 rich annotations, high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the full calling context: what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and a notable edge case. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

The input schema already fully documents the single parameter, including that id can be a search hit id, a site path, or a full URL. The description reinforces this meaning by mentioning 'search hit returned' and 'canonical URL,' but it does not add meaning substantially beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the exact action and resource: retrieving a full document by a search-hit id or canonical site URL, and returning it as markdown. The title reinforces the same meaning, and the final sentence adds a distinguishing edge case, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly differentiated from the sibling get_* tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: after search when the whole record is needed rather than a single figure, and for pages not covered by typed tools. It lists concrete examples like rankings, off-plan listings, methodology, and prose pages. However, the claim that rankings and methodology are not covered by typed tools sits awkwardly with the sibling tools get_ranking and get_methodology, so the routing guidance is not perfectly reliable.

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