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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds what content is returned (attribution, provenance, terms), which is useful. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds moderate context, but no pagination or error behavior is described—though likely unnecessary given the idempotent read nature.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the return scope, followed immediately by parameter sourcing—zero filler.

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 simple one-parameter read with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter sourcing, and return scope adequately. A brief note on error behavior for invalid ids would make it fully complete, but 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and already documents the id parameter with examples. The description's only parameter-adjacent note is where to obtain the id, which is marginally useful but does not add syntax beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('One poem in full') with named scope (attribution, provenance, sharing terms), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_poems, search_poems, and random_poem.

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?

It gives clear routing guidance: 'Use the id from list_poems or search_poems.' This tells the agent where the required parameter comes from, though it doesn't explain when to choose random_poem over this tool.

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