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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description earns credit by disclosing the return payload (title, full text, source url, structured metadata), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits failure behavior for a malformed or non-existent id, which is the remaining gap for a lookup tool.

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 sentences with no filler; the usage trigger is front-loaded and the second sentence carries only the input contract and the return contents. Nothing could be removed without losing information an agent needs.

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?

One required, fully documented parameter, no output schema (and the description compensates by describing the return fields), and a clear upstream dependency on `search`. For a tool of this complexity, an agent has everything it needs to call it correctly.

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% and the schema itself carries the regex pattern and the `task:<uuid>` / `sprint:<uuid>` example. The description restates the same provenance ("prefixed id returned by `search`") without adding format, escape, or edge-case detail, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and the baseline 3 applies.

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 action (retrieve the full content of a search result) and the resource (a Weft item identified by a prefixed id), then enumerates what comes back: title, full text representation, source url, structured metadata. It explicitly positions itself relative to the sibling `search`, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 you need the full content of a search result" gives a clear triggering condition and names `search` as the tool that produces the required id, which implicitly defines the ordered workflow search → fetch. It does not state any exclusions (e.g., that this cannot be used without a prior search, or that unknown ids error), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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