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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint for safety, and the description adds what behavior the output has: structured source facts plus clearly identified explanatory guidance. This helps the agent know what type of content to expect, which goes slightly beyond what annotations tell them.

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?

Two precise sentences front-load the usage constraint ('after search') and resource scope, then describe the return type. There is no filler and every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the present output schema, the safety annotations, and a sibling set that clearly distinguishes a search tool from a render tool, the description is fully sufficient. It also mentions it returns both facts and explanatory guidance, covering the output nature beyond the schema.

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 description fully documents the only parameter, including the specific ID prefix patterns. The description adds nothing material about this parameter beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description clearly states both a specific verb (retrieve) and a specific resource (one complete citation-ready EU Money record by ID). It names the distinct record types it handles (grant, draft, topic, or knowledge) and can be told apart from siblings by referring to 'after search' for the ID and returning full complex content.

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 opening sentence 'Use this after search' explicitly positions the tools' usage in the workflow, and the ID parameter confirmation ('ID returned by search') reinforces that operations depend on search results. It doesn't explicitly state exclusion conditions, but the context makes it clear a separate search should be used for exploration before narrowing to fetch.

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