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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns source text, attribution, and dates when available, and must never infer a review—consistent with the annotations.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by output expectations and a behavioral guardrail. No filler or repetition of schema or annotation details.

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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, output schema present, and annotations covering safety and idempotence. The description supplies the remaining essentials—provenance of the ID, return contents, and an important constraint—so nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining 'id' as the canonical URL ID returned by search. This adds real meaning beyond the bare string parameter name and is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'fetch a verified public document' by canonical URL ID, and adds scope by tying the ID to search results. It also distinguishes itself from sibling read/search tools by specifying return content and the explicit 'never infer a review' constraint.

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 clearly signals when to use the tool: after search, with the canonical URL ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is otherwise unambiguous for a one-parameter tool.

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