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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds genuine scope disclosure beyond that: what is returned (citation URL and operational facts) and, importantly, what is withheld (private record content).

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 tight sentences with the identifier form and data-scope caveat front-loaded; 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?

With no output schema, the description does tell the agent what comes back at a high level, and annotations cover safety. It stops short of describing error or not-found behavior, or what "operational facts" concretely contains.

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%, so the description is the only prose explaining the single parameter. It does explain "module:id" and that the id must come from search, but the accepted module names and numeric-suffix rule live only in the schema pattern.

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 (fetch) and resource (an operational source), plus the exact identifier form (module:id). It also distinguishes itself from the search path by requiring an id that search previously returned.

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 phrase "previously returned by search" implicitly tells the agent to call search first and use this only for known ids, which is useful routing. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative for other lookup needs.

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