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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add operational context. It usefully discloses the return payload structure (community, title, link, dated) and the hard dependency on a prior tool call. It does not mention pagination or result caps, which keeps it just under a 5.

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 tight sentences: trigger intent first, return shape second, constraint last. No filler, and the routing constraint is front-loaded where an agent will see it before invoking.

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?

With a single required parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what triggers it, what the input must be, and what it returns. Nothing material is omitted for a tool of this complexity.

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's own description already states it is 'The `id` of an idea returned by list_video_opportunities.' The description restates the same provenance rule, adding emphasis but no new semantic detail about the identifier itself. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully carries parameter meaning.

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 names a specific verb+resource combination ('returns its dated source citations') and anchors it to a concrete user intent ('why Tukey suggested a specific idea'). It also implicitly separates this retrieval tool from the sibling that produces ideas (list_video_opportunities).

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 an explicit trigger condition (user asks why / wants sources / wants community posts), a prerequisite (an id from list_video_opportunities), and a prohibition ('Do not use it without an id from that tool'). The alternative path is spelled out rather than inferred.

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