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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful piece of behavior beyond that – the plan entitlement requirement – but says nothing about not-found handling, malformed-id errors, or the shape/size of the 'full record'.

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?

One tightly packed sentence: action first, then the id grammar, then the plan constraint. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns ('full record'), where the input comes from, and the id format. It omits any hint about the record's contents or failure modes, which is the only remaining gap.

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 must carry the parameter alone, and it does: it enumerates the three accepted id forms (address:<chain>:<addr>, tx:<chain>:<hash>, alert:<id>). That is meaningful compensation, though the permitted chain values are left unstated.

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?

Specific verb ('Fetch') plus a specific resource ('the full Prax intelligence record') scoped to an id, and it clarifies the relationship to the 'search' sibling by stating this consumes an id returned by search. It stops short of an explicit contrast like 'use search to discover, fetch to expand', but an agent can still tell what it returns versus search.

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 implies a search-then-fetch workflow and states the eligibility gate ('Business plan and above'), which is real context for deciding whether to call it. It does not spell out when not to use it (e.g., for ids from other sources) or what happens on an unknown/invalid id.

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