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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns the same Markdown twin served at url plus .md, includes frontmatter, verbatim text, and summaries under named headings. It also explains the 'full' parameter behavior (adds optional material or first 60,000-character page of notes for Code/constitutions, with frontmatter naming the next page). This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand pagination and content structure.

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 dense but well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose (fetch full document for an id), gives concrete id examples, then explains the return format and the 'full' parameter. Every sentence earns its place. It's slightly long but the complexity of the tool (multiple document types, pagination behavior) justifies the length.

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 has an output schema (which likely describes the returned document structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. It covers the id format, the full parameter behavior, and the content structure (frontmatter, verbatim text, summaries). The pagination behavior for notes is disclosed. The only missing piece is explicit guidance on error cases or what happens with invalid ids, but that's a minor gap for a read-only fetch 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains the 'id' parameter format with concrete examples (code:44-7-34, ga-const:art-i-sec-i-para-i, bill:2025-2026/hb136, opinion:S26A0060) and explains the 'full' parameter's effect (adds optional material or first page of notes). This is significant added meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't explicitly say id is required, but the schema already marks it required. The only minor gap is not explaining what happens if id is malformed.

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 tool fetches the full Markdown document for an id from search, with concrete examples of id formats and a clear distinction from search. It names the resource (document for an id) and the verb (fetch), and differentiates itself from the search tool by specifying it retrieves the full document rather than performing a search.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you have an id from search and need the full document. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of 'from search' and the sibling list (search, lookup tools) makes the usage context clear. It could be improved by explicitly saying 'use search first to get an id, then use fetch'.

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