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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: public documents only, and long pages are truncated with a link to the rest. This fully discloses the key operational caveats.

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 dense but well-structured: it front-loads what the tool does, then covers id formats, usage context, exclusions, and limits in a compact set of sentences. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: id formats, when to use it, when not to use it, alternatives, access limits, and truncation behavior. Nothing essential 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 schema covers the id parameter at 100%, but the description goes further by specifying the exact accepted forms: `session:YYYY-MM-DD`, `page:/path`, a FirmTape URL, or a bare YYYY-MM-DD trading day. This gives the agent enough detail to construct a valid id.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve the full text of one FirmTape document by id. It enumerates accepted id formats and explicitly contrasts the tool with get_session and get_levels, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without inspecting schemas.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('you hold an id from search, or a client that only speaks search/fetch') and explicit when-not-to-use conditions ('Not for: structured numbers — get_session and get_levels answer the same day with fields instead of prose'). This is model guidance.

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