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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the shape of returned content per document type and the inclusion of source and currency metadata, which is what an agent needs to trust the result.

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, zero filler; the purpose and returned content are front-loaded before the search exclusion. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return values need not be spelled out) and full annotation coverage, the description says everything needed to select and invoke it correctly: what it returns, which id to pass, and which sibling to use instead when searching.

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% and the single id parameter is already documented with format examples and length bounds. The description adds the provenance of the id ('returned by search'), which is mildly useful but largely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (read) and resource (full document) scoped by an id from search, and details exactly what content comes back for each document type (statute official text vs. court decision DavisStirling summary plus opinion start). This clearly separates it from the search/get_* siblings without needing their schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Do not use it to search; use search first to get an id.' Both the when-not condition and the required prerequisite/alternative are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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