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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value with 'in full', telling the agent this returns the complete record rather than a search snippet, but says nothing about truncation, payload size, or not-found behavior.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then packs the id namespaces and payload types into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 one-parameter read with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what id format to pass, and roughly what comes back. The remaining gap is failure behavior for invalid or stale ids, which matters because fetch is the terminal step of a search workflow.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns the bump by spelling out the id prefix families (lead:, call:, texts:, email:) and tying each to a return type, which is meaningfully more concrete than the schema's 'An id from search'.

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: read one search result in full by id, and enumerates the id namespaces (lead:, call:, texts:, email:) with the corresponding payload (merchant record, call with transcript, text thread, email). That clearly separates it from the search siblings, but it does not distinguish it from get_call, get_lead, or get_email, which appear to target the same entities.

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 phrase 'by its id' plus 'An id from search' implies the intended workflow: run a search first, then fetch one hit for the full record. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the type-specific getters, and no noting of what to do if the id is unknown or expired.

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