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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'Full', hinting the record is not truncated, but says nothing about returned fields, error behavior, or permissions.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the provenance clue is bracketed rather than buried in prose. Slightly terse for a getter whose return shape is never hinted at.

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 read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain returns, this is close to adequate. It still leaves the returned listing contents and unknown-id behavior unspecified, which an agent calling it cold would want.

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 0% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema gives no description. The description partially compensates by telling the agent the id comes from search_tools, but adds no format or validity detail for the id itself.

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 resource (a single tool's full listing) and the selection key (its id), and the parenthetical '(from search_tools)' distinguishes it from the sibling search_tools. The verb is implicit in 'listing' rather than an explicit 'fetch/retrieve', keeping it just short of a 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?

The '(from search_tools)' note implies the id must originate from a prior search, which is useful routing. It never states when this tool is preferred over search_tools or what happens for an unknown id, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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