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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what comes back for each id type (definition/unit/values for indicators, sources for answers, everything known for places), though it omits error behavior for invalid ids and rate or auth notes.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Returns', with no filler. The parenthetical enumeration of content types is dense but earns its space by describing return content in the absence of an output schema.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately covers what is returned for each id type, and the single param is fully documented in the schema. Only the behavior on an unknown or malformed id is left unstated, a minor gap for a one-parameter read tool.

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 single id parameter has 100% schema description coverage with an inline example ('indicator:CRIME.HOMICIDE_RATE'), so the schema carries the load. The description only reinforces that the id originates from search and does not add format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: it returns the full text of a result previously obtained from search, and enumerates the three document kinds it can resolve (answer, indicator, place). This clearly separates it from retrieval siblings like search/find_indicators, though it does not explicitly name those siblings or contrast with describe_indicator/resolve_place.

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 phrase 'a result from search' implies the tool is used after search, giving an implicit workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as describe_indicator or resolve_place for the same content types.

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