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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns 'full text' and requires an id from search, providing some behavioral context beyond the schema, but no details on return format or errors.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action and resource. No redundant information or elaboration, making it highly concise.

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?

With one parameter, output schema present, and clear annotations, the description covers the essential usage. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but for a simple fetch operation it is sufficiently 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?

The schema already documents the 'id' parameter with 100% coverage, describing it as 'Document id from a prior search result.' The description repeats this same information, adding no new parameter semantics beyond reinforcement of the search dependency.

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's action ('Retrieve the full text') and the target resource ('UkraineBorder document'). It distinguishes from sibling search tools by specifying this tool returns full text for a specific id.

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 says 'by the id returned from search' which implies a specific workflow (use after search). It doesn't explicitly list alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for the common use case.

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