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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response is the document's full text (potentially large) but says nothing about truncation, size limits, or behavior for missing/inaccessible ids, which matters for a whole-document fetch.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the return value and resource, then appends the id provenance and purpose. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers what comes back and where the id originates. It is slightly incomplete in not resolving its overlap with get_document_text or noting any size/truncation behavior.

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 0% — the single id parameter is typed string with no description — so the description carries the burden, and it does: '(from search)' tells the agent the id is a search-result identifier, not a path, URL, or title. That is meaningful clarification the bare schema does not provide.

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 names the resource (a document) and what it returns (full text), keyed by id, so an agent knows this is a retrieval-by-id tool rather than a search. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling get_document_text, which sounds functionally identical, leaving a real ambiguity unresolved.

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?

'(from search)' gives an implicit routing rule: the id should come from a prior search call, and 'to answer questions about its content' frames the use case. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of get_document_text as an alternative, so the agent must guess which text-retrieval sibling to pick.

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