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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds that returned text is verbatim/as-notified and lists the returned fields, which is modestly useful context but no permission, rate-limit, or error 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?

The instruction is front-loaded ('Use this to read...') and the three content cases are packed into one efficient sentence, followed by a compact return-field list. Minor redundancy in spelling out three content types, but nothing extraneous.

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 a single required parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id, title, text, url, metadata). An agent has enough to invoke and interpret the result; only edge behavior (missing/invalid id) is unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already provides id examples (udcpr/6-2-6, towns/kolhapur, glossary/carpet). The description only loosely adds that the id originates from search, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description states a concrete operation (read one search result in full) and enumerates the three content shapes it can return: a UDCPR regulation/table, a town with plot figures, or a glossary term. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools, which return lists rather than a single full record. It stops short of a crisp verb+resource framing, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It names the condition for use: reading one result of a search in full, which implies the caller already holds an id from search — a clear precondition. No explicit exclusions are given (e.g., when to prefer clause, towns, or search_udcpr instead), which is the only gap.

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