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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses specific return content: metadata, AI summary, classification tags, inline obligations (up to 50 with total count), and a link to the original source. It also explains that the URL provides access to the full text on official websites, adding practical behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a list of return contents, a hint about using the URL, and an args section for the parameter. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no nested objects, and an output schema exists. The description covers how to obtain the parameter, what the response includes, and how to access the full text. This is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining that document_id is 'The Velvoite document ID (integer from search/list results)'. This adds context about the type and source of the ID, which is valuable beyond the schema's bare integer type declaration.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details of a specific regulatory document by its ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_regulations and list_documents by indicating this is a retrieval tool for a single known document, not a search or list operation.

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 explicitly tells the agent to obtain the document_id from search_regulations or list_documents results, providing clear context on when to use this tool. It also mentions using the URL for full text access, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for other use cases.

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