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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context about the returned content (current status vs. complete timeline) but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. This is acceptable given the annotations, though richer context would be beneficial.

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 concise, using two well-structured sentences. It front-loads the action ('Retrieve the full text') and immediately clarifies scope, with no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, a complete schema, and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose, ID source, and content types. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention error cases or fallback behavior, but these are likely covered by the output schema.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter 'id' with examples and expected format. The description adds a minor note that IDs come from the search tool, which is helpful but not necessary since the schema already explains the parameter. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 description clearly states the tool retrieves the full text of a search result by ID, with specific detail on two types of content (provider status and incident timeline). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_incident_details by emphasizing it works on search results and returns full text, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context that IDs come from the search tool, indicating this is meant to be used after a search. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for common use cases.

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