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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return payload (full Markdown body plus URL and language), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence covering action, source of the input, and return content, with zero filler.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the prerequisite tool, the id format, and what comes back. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so the `id` parameter is already documented as coming from search. The description goes further by showing concrete id shapes ("en:profile", "pl:service:events", "blog:<slug>"), clarifying the namespace/locale prefix convention that the schema does not.

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 and resource (returns the full Markdown text of a document) and explicitly ties it to the sibling `search` that produces the id, so an agent can distinguish retrieval from discovery without opening the 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?

The phrase "found with search" establishes the workflow: search first, then fetch by id. It gives clear context for when to call it, but no explicit exclusion (e.g. what to do if the id is unknown or stale).

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