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 fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – nothing on what happens when the ID is unknown, whether the tree prefix is resolved per-tree, or any cost/latency characteristic – and instead restates content that the output schema already enumerates.

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?

A single compact fragment with no filler. It is front-loaded, but on the payload rather than on the action, which slightly weakens orientation even though the length is ideal.

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?

The tool is simple and the heavy lifting is done elsewhere: one fully documented required parameter, complete annotations, and an output schema that already covers return values. What the description does not cover – sibling routing and error/not-found behavior – is the remaining gap, so it is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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?

There is one parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains the ID format and that the tree prefix may be omitted in a single-tree Forest. The description contributes nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 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?

The description is a noun phrase enumerating returned content ('A concept's markdown body and frontmatter, with its provenance...') rather than stating a verb+resource action. Combined with the name/title it is inferable as a read-by-ID operation, but the text itself never says 'retrieve a concept by ID' and draws no boundary against siblings like search_concepts or get_links.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus search_concepts (to find an ID first), get_links (for a links-only view), or check_freshness (for staleness alone), even though the description mentions links, backlinks and staleness – precisely the overlap with those siblings. The agent must infer the routing itself.

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