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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a pactum.uz page URL is accepted as input, which is useful context, but the return-field list duplicates what the output schema already provides and nothing is said about error behavior for invalid or expired 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler. The trailing 'Returns id, title, text, url, metadata' is partly wasted given an output schema exists, but the overall length is well-matched to the tool's simplicity.

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-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, including the URL-as-id flexibility. The only real gap is the missing disambiguation from the typed getter siblings.

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 single `id` parameter is already documented as 'an id from search results, or a https://pactum.uz/... URL'. The description restates that capability without adding constraints, normalization rules, or examples, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('full text of one item ... by its id') and enumerates the item kinds it can return, which tells an agent it is a generic getter. It does not, however, distinguish itself from typed siblings like get_article, get_service, get_company_info, lookup_term or get_state_fees, which appear to overlap heavily.

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?

Usage is only implied via 'returned by search' — the agent can infer it is the follow-up step to search results. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the typed getters or what happens if an id from a different source is passed, despite a crowded sibling set.

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