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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful return characteristic that the whole document text is returned (versus snippets from search), but says nothing about missing-id errors, size limits, or truncation. Adequate but thin beyond the annotations.

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 a clear verb, the resource, the key constraint (by id), and compact examples. No wasted clauses.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, the description should say what comes back and how unknown ids behave; 'full text' is the only return hint. It is complete enough to call correctly but leaves error and output shape to inference.

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?

The schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage and no type detail beyond 'string', so the description carries the burden and does so with three concrete namespaced id examples ('guide:...', 'place:...', 'office:...'). It still doesn't state whether the prefix is mandatory or what the id must match exactly.

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 ('Get the full text') and resource ('a Staylong document by id'), and the phrase 'from search' plus the id examples make clear this is the retrieval step that follows a search lookup rather than a listing tool.

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?

'by id from search' implies the prerequisite flow: obtain an id via the search sibling, then fetch it here. That distinguishes it from list_places and search, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or statement of what happens for ids that don't exist.

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