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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds useful content context (it returns filed terms with clause page numbers) but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or edge cases beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.

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 content scope is stated immediately and every clause earns its place.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema covering return shape, and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to orient the agent on what this retrieves. It does that well, though it stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from list-oriented 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema itself explains the id format with an example ('F00070-06-000-02') and its origin in search. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline, so a 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 names a concrete resource and its scope: 'the full record behind a search id' plus what that record contains ('what the plan pays and every term as filed, with the page of each clause'). This clearly distinguishes a single-record retrieval from list-oriented siblings like search or plan_terms, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 'behind a search id' implies the prerequisite workflow (obtain an id from search, then fetch), which the schema reinforces. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternatives such as plan_terms or search_plan_terms, so usage is only implied.

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