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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered outside the description. The description usefully adds that the payload is the full text and which document types can come back, which distinguishes it from a snippet-returning search. It says nothing about what happens with a stale or unknown id, or about response size, so the added behavioral context is modest.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the document types enumerated after the colon. There is no filler, though the elliptical fragment style omits an explicit verb, which costs it a point relative to a fully formed lead sentence.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: the result is full text and can be one of three document types. Rich annotations cover the safety and idempotency profile. Only failure behavior for unknown ids is unaddressed, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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% for the single id parameter, so the schema already documents it as 'An id from search.' The description reinforces that the id must originate from a search result but adds no format, length, or error semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 (the full text of one search result) and enumerates the document kinds it can return: a dataset with all its fields, a category, or the plans guide. That goes beyond a tautology and implicitly separates it from the search tool that produces the id. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'One search result' and the schema note 'An id from search' together imply the intended workflow: call search first, then fetch by id. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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