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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: what content each type returns (task/doc bodies, bounded message text, file metadata), the legacy bare-ID fallback, and the required permission.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval mechanism, then per-type return behavior, then the permission requirement. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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-value structure need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes what content arrives per type. Annotations cover safety and the description covers auth, ID format, and fallback behavior — nothing an agent needs to call it is missing.

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 single parameter's description already documents the type prefix and the bare-ID-as-task rule. The description restates the bare-ID behavior rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (fetch) and resource (a result by its exact typed ID from search), and the typed-ID framing distinguishes it from the ID-based siblings get_task/get_doc. An agent can tell this is the search-result retrieval path without opening the 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 description establishes context — you fetch IDs that came out of search — and names a prerequisite (read permission for that source). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_task/get_doc for the same entity, so the alternative routing 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.