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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the full markdown is returned, `metadata.gated` only reflects web paywall status, and unknown ids produce an error. This is a clear improvement over the structured metadata alone.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds information: the retrieval behavior, the paywall semantics, and the required prerequisite. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema/annotation content.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the input schema covers all parameters at 100%, the description does not need to explain return shape or parameter formats. It covers the necessary behavioral aspects—full content, error condition, and the relationship to `search`—leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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. The description adds extra meaning for the `id` parameter by giving a concrete example of the expected format and reinforcing that it must come from a `search` result. The `llm_model` parameter is already fully documented in the schema, so no further description contribution is needed there.

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?

The title and description clearly state the resource (a documentation article) and the specific operation (retrieve complete markdown by id). It explicitly ties the input to values returned by `search`, which distinguishes it from its sibling tool without ambiguity.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call `search` first and warns that an unknown id is an error. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and prevents misuse, even though it does not enumerate every non-use case explicitly.

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