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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations do not: the returned fields and the non-obvious detail that status and sources are embedded inside the text rather than returned separately. It does not mention behavior for invalid or unknown ids.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, then id sourcing, then return shape. No filler and every sentence carries information.

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 a single required parameter and an output schema present, the description need not restate return types, though it does anyway. It is nearly complete for this complexity; the only gap is unspecified behavior when an id is stale or malformed.

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 says the id comes from search, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by enumerating concrete id formats ("answer:/gta-6/crossplay", "market:india", "trailer:<slug>"), which materially helps an agent recognise 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("full text" of a document) and frames it relative to the search tool that produces the id. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_facts or get_latest_news because it is explicitly the post-search full-text retrieval step.

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?

"Use this when a search result needs its full text" gives a clear triggering condition and implies the search-first workflow. It does not address the potential overlap with siblings such as get_facts, get_latest_news or get_trailers, even though the listed id prefixes (fact:, news:, trailer:) suggest this tool can also retrieve those document types directly.

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