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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses zero cost, that no scan is performed, and that blocked pages come back as 'blocked' with no score. It omits auth requirements and what happens for a missing/expired id, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the disambiguation, then the use case, then the edge case. No wasted clauses; each sentence adds a distinct fact.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, non-mutating behavior, and the blocked-page return case. The remaining gap is the not-found/expired-id behavior, which matters for a lookup-by-id tool but is a minor omission.

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 parameter description already explains that the id is the trailing segment of a botappetit.ai/r/<id> link or the `scan_id` from scan_page. The description's mention of obtaining the id from a link largely duplicates the schema, so this is baseline rather than additive.

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 ('Get a stored Bot Appétit report by scan id') and pins it to a concrete artifact ('the same report a person sees at botappetit.ai/r/<id>'). It actively separates itself from scanning siblings by declaring 'does not scan', so an agent can distinguish it from scan_page or site_scan_status without opening schemas.

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?

'Use it to re-read a report you were given a link to' gives a clear triggering condition, and 'Costs nothing and does not scan' implicitly rules out the scanning path. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to call when you have no stored report, leaving that inference to the agent.

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