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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety, repeatability and closed-world scope are fully covered structurally. The description adds only that the response is 'full text' plus 'a link to it', and since an output schema exists, return-shape detail carries limited extra value.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the input source attached. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is wasted.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, so the description only needs to cover purpose and input source, both of which it does. It falls short of full completeness only in not noting what happens when the id is not found.

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 0% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema alone does not say what the value is. The description partially compensates by specifying that the id is the one returned by search, which is meaningful provenance, but it gives no format, type, or failure behavior for an unknown id.

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: fetch the full text of one Dactic item. The clause 'by the id search returned' implicitly separates it from the sibling 'search' (which produces ids rather than full text), so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

The phrase 'the id search returned' gives a workflow cue that this tool follows search, which is useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor any mention of near-neighbors like get_entity_context or retrieve_similar_cases that also return content, so routing among the many get_*/retrieve_* siblings is left to inference.

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