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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by explaining how output varies by content type: guides give a summary, templates include a blank template plus worked example and editable file link, and calculators return method, input fields and a computed example.

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 tightly packed sentences lead with the core action and return format, then spend the remaining space on genuinely useful type-specific expectations. No sentence is redundant.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to cover what structured fields cannot. It does that by explaining the shape of results for each content type and the search-result id dependency, leaving little an agent would need to infer.

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 schema already documents the single id parameter with examples like 'template:experiment-plan'. The description reinforces that the id comes from a search result but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Get the full text of a search result by id, as Markdown') and distinguishes itself from the sibling search tool by making clear it operates on results already found. It also names the three content families (guides, templates, calculators) it can return, so an agent can tell exactly what resource it retrieves.

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 'a search result by id' clearly implies this is a follow-up call to search, giving solid context for when to use it. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternatives, but the search-first dependency is unambiguous.

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