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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying that the returned record is the 'full' record and by requiring that the id come from a search result, which prevents misuse. This is meaningful but not extensive, hence 4 rather than 3.

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?

Three sentences, each contributing distinct information: what it does, the critical constraint on the input, and the alternative tools for other id forms. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers use case, input provenance, exclusions, and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and output details are already provided 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with the 'id' property described as a typed reference with an example. The description adds value by explaining the id format ('<type>:<id>') and explicitly requiring that the id be one returned by search, which constrains how the parameter is sourced. That goes beyond the schema's basic type description.

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 names a specific verb ('fetches') and resource ('full SMI record') plus the exact input form ('<type>:<id>') and its origin (search results). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from sibling readers like smi_get_deep_report and smi_get_export, making its role 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?

It states exactly when to use the tool ('for a typed reference that search returned') and when not to ('Pass only an id that appeared in a search result; do not construct one'). It also names concrete alternatives for plain SMI record ids, giving clear routing guidance among siblings.

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