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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only one behavioral detail beyond that — that the result is the record's full text — and says nothing about error behavior, size limits, or what happens with a stale/invalid 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the verb and resource come first and the parenthetical id examples follow. Nothing here is redundant or padded.

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-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description says what goes in and that full text comes out, which is nearly enough. The only missing piece is guidance on how it relates to the record-specific get_* siblings.

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 description coverage is 100% and the id parameter already documents the 'property:<uuid>' format. The description adds only the enumeration of prefixes (property:, owner:, template:), which is marginally useful but largely restates the schema; 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 and resource ('Fetch the full text of a record') and scopes it to records returned by search. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many specific siblings like spur_get_property, spur_get_owner, or spur_get_letter_template, which plausibly return overlapping data for the same id prefixes.

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 'returned by search' implies the intended workflow (call search, then fetch its id), but this is inference rather than explicit instruction. There is no statement of when to prefer this generic fetch over the record-specific get_* tools, nor any when-not guidance.

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