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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the returned content is 'full bilingual' as opposed to a truncated/search result, which is modest added context rather than rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

One sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource and folding the id format into the same clause. Every element earns its place.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly with a valid id. It could do slightly more (e.g. what 'bilingual' returns or error behavior for a bad id), but nothing essential is missing.

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 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema with the same q001 example. The description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (full bilingual answer for a knowledge-base entry) with the lookup key. It is clear on its own, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like search_husverket, which an agent might reasonably confuse for answer retrieval.

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?

The 'by its id (e.g. q001)' phrasing implies the tool requires a known entry id, which is mild usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no reference to the search sibling for resolving unknown ids.

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