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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds the return format ('Content full text list with document_id, full_text') but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, or data freshness. Given the annotations, the description provides adequate but not exhaustive transparency.

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?

The description is overly long (over 20 lines) and largely repeats the parameter list from the input schema. The bullet points of use cases are verbose and could be condensed. The front-loading is acceptable, but the redundancy reduces conciseness. A more streamlined version would be more effective.

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 tool with 26 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of pagination (limit/offset behavior), the meaning of 'file_data_only', and details about the returned data structure beyond 'document_id, full_text'. The absence of an output schema increases the burden on the description, which is not fully met.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists all parameters with brief explanations that mirror the schema. It adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as parameter interplay, formatting constraints, or edge cases. The 'Returns' section is helpful but does not enhance parameter semantics.

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 tool's purpose is clearly stated: 'Retrieves full text for a specific jurisdiction and optional filters.' It specifies the resource (full text) and action (retrieve), and implies it is a query tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_document_with_version or get_markdown, leaving the agent to infer that 'full text' is distinct.

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 includes bullet points listing when to use the tool (e.g., 'when the user asks about available full text for a portal name...'). This provides some guidance, but it does not mention when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools. The list is broad and somewhat redundant with the parameter list, offering limited strategic direction.

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