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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description still adds real value on top: it names the returned artifacts and, importantly, warns that text between [quoted] and [/quoted] is third-party data that must never be treated as instructions. That injection-defense guidance is behavioral context an agent cannot get from any structured field.

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, front-loaded with the operation and return payload, then the security note. It is dense (the parenthetical id list is heavy) but every clause earns its place; only the id enumeration feels slightly over-packed relative to the schema.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still summarizes them for orientation. It covers the id source, the output shape, and the untrusted-content handling rule, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 the single id parameter is already documented with the same format examples, so the schema carries the load. The description does add two id variants (list:countries, list:states) not shown in the schema, but this is marginal enrichment over an already complete field.

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 (read) and resource (one document from the index) plus exactly what comes back: full text, page URL, license, data date. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the lookalike siblings get_country/get_method/get_state, which read single entities by a similar-looking key, so the agent must infer the distinction from the id format rather than being told.

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 the id search gave" establishes the intended workflow (search first, then fetch) and the accepted id shapes are provided, which is clear operational context. It stops short of an explicit exclusion such as when to prefer get_country/list_countries over fetch, so no alternative-routing guidance is given.

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