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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by clarifying that this returns a result 'in full' (versus a search snippet) and by naming the accepted id namespaces; it omits what happens for unknown/malformed ids.

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 delivers purpose, accepted id formats, and audience with no filler. The long inline parenthetical is dense but every token is informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile. Purpose, valid id forms, and audience are all present 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single `id` param has no documented format in the schema, so the description must compensate — and it does, enumerating the verse:/need:/church:/gathering:/community:/lb: prefixes with placeholder shapes. It stops short of saying whether other prefixes are accepted.

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 — 'Read one search result in full by its id' — and enumerates the id namespaces, which an agent can use to recognize valid inputs. It is distinguishable from the generic `search` sibling, though it never explicitly names that relationship.

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?

'Provided for connector clients' is a usage-context hint, and the id-format list implies this is the second step after a search returns an id. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many siblings.

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