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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the 'full text' nature of the response and id-format examples, saying nothing about truncation against max_tokens, rate limits, or missing-id behavior.

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 with the action first and the id examples trailing; every element earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the rich annotations cover safety. The description plus schema cover both parameters, though a brief note on what happens when the id is unknown or when output is truncated would make it fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description exceeds it by supplying four concrete id examples across different sources ('cso:F1001', 'oireachtas:bill/2024/12', 'legislation:2018/7/s2', 'data-gov-ie:moby-bikes'), which makes the '<source>:<key>' pattern tangible in a way the schema alone does not.

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 (fetch) plus resource (full text of a search result) and the keying mechanism (by its id). The phrase 'of a search result' cleanly separates it from the sibling 'search' tool and from metadata-oriented siblings like ireland_describe.

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 description makes the usage context clear: this is the follow-up step that retrieves a document identified by a prior search. It does not, however, name when-not to use it or point to alternatives such as ireland_describe, so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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