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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so much of the behavioral burden is lifted. The description adds that only the 'public' object is returned, which is useful scope information not in annotations, but doesn't discuss errors for missing ids, permissions, or rate limits.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every clause earns its place by naming the resource and the linkage to search.

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?

With annotations and an output schema present, the description needs only to establish purpose and provenance, which it does. Missing explicit contrast with get_object is a minor gap given the low-complexity single-parameter shape.

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 single id parameter is fully documented in the schema with constraints. The description adds only the provenance hint ('returned by search'), which duplicates the schema description, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (fetches) and resource (the full public object), and ties the input to the 'search' sibling by referencing an id returned by search. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from get_object, which is a close sibling and leaves ambiguity about when to use one over the other.

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 clearly implies the workflow: use after search to retrieve the full object for a returned id. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with get_object, but the search-provenance context is a clear usage cue.

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