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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful distinction that this returns the *full* record versus a search result stub, but says nothing about error behavior for malformed ids or whether private/unpublished records are excluded.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the id examples as trailing illustration. No filler, no restating of the title.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly. The only gap is that 'full public record' is not characterized in any way (fields, size, shape), so the agent cannot anticipate what comes back.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema only says the id comes from search, so the description's prefix examples (ngo:, event:, volunteer:, fund:, store:, product:, library:, page:) are genuinely additive — they tell the agent the expected id grammar and the set of entity types. Slightly above baseline because of that concrete format guidance.

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 (the full public record) and anchors it to an id produced by the sibling tool search, so it is immediately distinguishable from list_* and search_* tools. The enumerated id prefixes make the scope concrete.

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 establishes the prerequisite that the id must come from search, which routes the agent away from guessing ids. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. use list_* for enumeration) or what happens on an invalid/unknown id.

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