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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: fulltext/transcript are opt-in and pageable, content respects an exposure policy, and an unknown ID errors rather than returning empty. That is meaningful behavior beyond the structured hints, though it omits whether errors are distinguishable by type.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core read purpose front-loaded ahead of the opt-in paging and error details. Every clause carries information.

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 the description need not explain return values, and the read-only annotations cover safety, so what remains is largely sufficient. The missing piece is routing relative to the typed getter siblings and any auth/exposure prerequisites.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters including the include_/offset/max_chars family. The description's 'opt-in and pageable' phrasing echoes this but adds no syntax, interaction rules (e.g., offset requires the matching include flag), or default guidance beyond the schema.

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 (read) and resource (a typed search result / AMIRA record) and adds the 'as a cited document' framing. However, it never distinguishes itself from the typed siblings (get_publication, get_podcast, get_video, get_research_item), so an agent cannot tell from the description why it would call fetch with 'pub:30001' instead of get_publication.

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?

Implies usage through 'read a typed search result' and 'full text/transcripts are opt-in', which tells the agent this follows a search. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of the typed getter alternatives, and no prerequisites or exposure-policy preconditions spelled out.

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