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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return is full text rather than a summary, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown or malformed ids, which matters for a lookup keyed on a string id.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned. Every clause earns its place: the id examples and the 'not legal advice' note are both load-bearing. Slightly clipped phrasing ('The full text of one record found with search') costs a little readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be described, and the sole parameter is fully documented. The remaining gap is error handling and the boundaries versus sibling get_* tools, but for a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by giving three concrete id shapes across namespaces (rules:, opinions:, benchmarks:), which tells the agent more than the schema's 'An id from search'. This is real added value for constructing a valid call.

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: retrieves 'the full text of one record'. The generic name 'fetch' is rescued by the description, which clarifies the resource is a legal-marketing record and that it works on ids produced by search. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_rule or get_benchmark, which also return single records.

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?

'found with search' implies a two-step workflow (search first, then fetch), which is genuine usage guidance. However, no exclusion is given against sibling single-record tools such as get_rule, get_benchmark or cite, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone which one to call for a rule versus a benchmark.

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