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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations do not: that the payload includes the source URL for citation, which signals the intended downstream use. It stops short of noting size, truncation, or error behavior for a missing id.

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 plus a compact example, with the core action ('returns the full text of one document by id') front-loaded. Nothing is padded or restated.

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 is not obligated to describe return fields, and annotations carry the safety profile; what remains is complete for a single-id lookup. The only gap is the lack of explicit routing to the 'search' sibling that supplies the id.

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% and only one parameter exists, so the schema already fully documents 'id' including its format examples. The description's inline example JSON is redundant with the schema example, adding no new syntax or constraint information. 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 and resource: returns the full text of one Switchboard Finance document fetched by id. The id example ('lane:caveat') makes the lookup key unambiguous. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the 'search' sibling that would produce that id.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by its id' plus the example id hints that this follows a search result, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion naming 'search' as the alternative for discovery. An agent must infer the lookup-vs-discovery split.

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