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

The annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds further behavioral context: it does not log invocations, entitlement is required for non-open loops, and all published loops are currently open and free. This goes meaningfully beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences, each carrying distinct value: the action, the entitlement caveat, and the logging distinction from run_chapter. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is fetched, how chapters are identified, entitlement rules, and the relationship to the logging variant. Nothing critical 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters fully, including an enum for node with descriptions. The description repeats 'loop slug and node' but adds no additional semantic detail, 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('full content of a chapter') and identifies the two required identifiers ('loop slug and node'). It also distinguishes itself from run_chapter and get_loop by framing chapter-level content 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?

Explicitly states when the tool is appropriate: fetching chapter content without logging an invocation. It names run_chapter as the alternative for running the framework and logging, and mentions entitlement conditions. This gives clear routing guidance.

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