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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds one useful contrast, that the response is the *full* text (implying search results are truncated/partial), but says nothing about pagination, size limits, or failure behavior for an unknown id.

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 short sentence with zero filler, and the key dependency (`search`) is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a tool with a 0%-documented parameter, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return, and 'le texte complet' is only a partial answer for an agent trying to predict the response shape. Combined with a single undocumented parameter, the definition is minimally adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the only stated semantics for `id` is 'par son identifiant' — it does clarify that the identifier comes from a `search` result, which is genuinely useful given the bare schema. However, it adds no format, type, or validity guidance beyond that, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 concrete verb+resource in context: it retrieves 'Le texte complet' (the full text) of a `search` result, keyed by identifier. Naming `search` as the producing sibling is what makes the otherwise generic name `fetch` interpretable, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the other twelve sibling tools.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: by tying itself to a `search` result, it signals it is a follow-up call to a prior search. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, nor an explanation of why an agent would choose this over a `search` result that might already contain the text.

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