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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to cover side effects. It adds useful detail about the return contents (full content, sources, page URL), though it does not disclose error behavior or edge cases.

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 English description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the full Hebrew translation is redundant for an AI agent consuming this definition, so not every part of the description 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?

For a single-parameter fetch tool with complete schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient: it explains what the output contains and what valid ids look like. It could benefit from a short note on invalid-id behavior, but nothing essential is missing for basic invocation.

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 parameter is already described as 'An id returned by search.' The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by enumerating valid id shapes like 'question:<slug>', 'test:mri', and 'surgeon:<licence>', which helps the agent construct correct inputs.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: it fetches the full content of one search result by id, and lists concrete id formats. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_cover or search, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 'id from search' implies this tool is intended to be used after a search returns an id, which is useful contextual guidance. However, it never states when not to use it or names alternatives, so the usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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