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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining the tool's behavior. 'Retrieve' and 'full contents' convey that it is a non-destructive read of a single record, but it does not disclose response format, error behavior, or any access requirements. Adequate for a simple fetch, but minimal.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element serves to clarify the tool's purpose and key prerequisite.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and how to invoke it. It could mention what the response looks like, but 'full contents' provides a reasonable high-level expectation.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter 'id', describing it as 'An id from a search result'. The description reinforces this connection but adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('one record'), and the source of the identifier ('id returned from search'). It distinguishes itself from list/search siblings by specifying that it returns full contents of a single record.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: after a search, when you have a specific id and want complete record contents. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_* tools, but the 'id from search' instruction implies the intended workflow.

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