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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating it retrieves 'full text' and is intended 'for quoting and citation,' which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions with 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every phrase earns its place: id format and prerequisite are stated efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter), has a rich schema, output schema, and helpful annotations. The description fully covers what, why, and the prerequisite (search first), so it is complete for this complexity level.

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%, but the description still enriches the parameter meaning by showing id format examples ('company/<slug>', etc.) and reinforcing that the id comes from a search result. This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 verb ('Retrieve'), the resource ('directory document'), and the specific purpose ('for quoting and citation'). It also explains the id format and explicitly ties the tool to search results, distinguishing it from sibling getter tools that are type-specific.

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 usage context: 'Always call search first to get an id.' This tells the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., get_answer, get_ranking) or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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