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

Adds context beyond annotations: describes the output format (frontmatter, verbatim text, summaries) and the canonical page for citation. Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description enriches the behavioral picture without contradiction.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes necessary examples. It is efficient but packs a lot of detail in one sentence, which slightly reduces readability while still being appropriately concise.

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 an output schema exists, the description covers what is returned (frontmatter, text, summaries) and notes the canonical page. It does not mention error handling for invalid ids, but this is a minor gap for a fetch tool; overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining the 'id' parameter with concrete examples of accepted formats and the 'full' parameter as lifting notes cap or adding optional material. This adds essential meaning the schema lacks.

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 (fetch) and resource (full document for an id), with concrete id format examples (code:44-7-34, bill:2025-2026/hb136) that distinguish it from search (which returns ids) and other text tools like bills_get_text or opinions_get_text. It clarifies it returns the Markdown twin of the site page, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

Clearly implies usage after search by saying 'for an id from search', and explains the optional 'full' flag behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus siblings, leaving some routing to inference.

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