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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds that the return is a 'full document' and lists id formats, which is useful context, but provides no further behavioral details like pagination or authentication.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and then immediately enumerates the parameter formats. No wasted words, and the most critical information (purpose and id syntax) is presented first.

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 simple read tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides the key missing context: the id format examples. It is nearly complete, though it could mention whether the returned document includes content or metadata.

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 description must compensate. It does so by listing valid id formats (e.g., resort:slug, history:slug, state:xx), which is essential for correct invocation. Minor gap: it does not explicitly state that an empty id is invalid, though the schema enforces minLength 1.

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 a full document by id') and clarifies the source ('from search results'), which distinguishes it from search or search_resorts siblings. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool, leaving the differentiation slightly implicit.

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 'from search results' implies this tool is used after a search, giving indirect context. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead, so usage is only implied.

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