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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what is returned (full text, canonical URL, source), but says nothing about behavior on a stale/unknown id, truncation, or size limits.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and its output, with zero hedging or repetition. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully names the return payload (full text, canonical URL, source) and the origin of the id. For a one-parameter read tool that is nearly enough; only error and truncation behavior remain unaddressed.

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% and the single `id` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the "<resource>:<recordId>" format. The description only restates that the id originates from `search`, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured field, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (fetch) and resource (full text of one record) and ties the input to `search` output, so it is distinguishable from the search tools. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling `get_resource`, which an agent might reasonably confuse with fetching a record.

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?

Establishes a clear workflow precondition: the id must come from a prior `search` call, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming alternatives such as `get_resource` or `search_library`.

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