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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the nature of the return payload (complete speech text plus metadata), which goes beyond what the schema alone 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and key differentiator (full text vs preview) are front-loaded, and the metadata list is concise but informative.

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 one parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It even enumerates the expected return fields, compensating for the absence of an output schema, and tells the agent where to obtain the input.

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% for the single parameter, including an example value. The description adds meaning by explaining where the speech_id originates (from search_speeches' speech_id field), which helps the agent chain the tools correctly.

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') and resource ('one Diet speech's full text and metadata') and explicitly ties it to the speechID from search_speeches. It clearly differentiates itself from search_speeches by promising complete text versus a preview.

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 tells the agent that speechID comes from search_speeches' speech_id field, and explains why this tool is needed after search_speeches: it returns full text where search_speeches only gives a preview. It doesn't list explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the usage context is clear.

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