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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the failure-mode caveat 'Not all documents have extracted text available' plus the licensing/attribution requirement for citing results. These are genuine behavioral traits beyond the structured fields, though rate limits and truncation behavior are not addressed.

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 core action and the search-first prerequisite are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by the accepted input forms and the caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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, return values need not be explained. The description still covers the workflow prerequisite, the accepted identifier forms, the possibility of missing extracted text, and citation attribution — everything needed to invoke and use the result 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the property description already enumerates bare filename, .pdf filename, full URL, and textUrl value. The description restates the same accepted forms without adding syntax or format detail, so it is baseline-adequate rather than additive.

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 ('Get the full text of a specific tax-treaty document') and scopes it to a single named document. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_revenue_document_text and search_tax_treaties without needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite and the alternative: 'Use search_tax_treaties first to find the document.' That routes the agent correctly. It stops short of a when-not-to-use this tool (e.g. when to prefer get_revenue_document_text instead), so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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