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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the error/availability rule for unpublished and unknown IDs and by characterizing the payload as citable text and dated facts. No pagination or rate-limit detail, but nothing is contradicted.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action and its scope come first, followed by the payload and the availability caveat. Every sentence carries information the agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and it still gives a useful preview of the content plus the failure mode. The only meaningful omission is format guidance for the id parameter, which matters for a tool that rejects malformed input.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema offers just a regex pattern with no prose. The description adds partial meaning by saying the id must be one returned by search, but it never explains the 'tool:'/'news:' prefix scheme encoded in the pattern or that IDs are UUIDs.

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 one public record') and scopes it to IDs produced by search, which separates it from siblings like search and list_my_submissions. It also previews the payload ('citable text and dated facts'). It stops short of naming the sibling tool explicitly or clarifying how it differs from the other get_* readers.

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 'returned by search' tells the agent this is a follow-up call after search, and 'Unpublished and unknown IDs are unavailable' defines a failure condition up front. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or a named alternative for discovering IDs, but the intended workflow is clear.

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