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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, and the description still adds substantial behavior: id namespace formats, INVALID_PARAMS on unknown ids, tier-based clamping (anonymous/free/Pro), history_note signalling when a record was clamped, and withholding of source notes that restate invisible values. That is well beyond what the annotation block provides.

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?

Front-loads what is returned, then the USE/DO NOT USE routing, then id formats and tiering. Dense but every block carries information; the tiering/citation paragraph is somewhat long, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fully specifies the return envelope ({id, title, text, url, metadata}) plus what lives in `text` and `metadata` (as_of, freshness, basis, cite_as, license_url). An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 schema already documents the single `id` parameter with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description compensates further by spelling out the four id grammars (dataset, dataset#series_key, article, tool) inline and specifying the failure mode for unknown ids, adding meaning beyond the schema text.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one Silicon Analysts record by the id search returned') and immediately enumerates the return shape. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling `search` and from the `get_*` family, which return typed/filtered data rather than a record rendering.

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?

Contains explicit 'USE THIS for' and 'DO NOT USE for' blocks, names the connector-host scenario, and routes to the alternative (`metadata.structured_tool` names the specialised tool behind the record). When-not guidance is concrete rather than implied.

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