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 description correctly focuses on what annotations cannot say: the exact returned fields (id, name, about, kind, page, created_at, updated_at) and the failure mode (error message when no public bot has that id). The only omission is any hint about visibility rules for non-public bots beyond the error case.

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 short sentences ordered as purpose, id sourcing, return shape and error case. Every sentence adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess, and nothing is repeated from 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?

There is no output schema, so naming the returned fields is necessary and it is done. Combined with the single documented parameter and the stated not-found behavior, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 pattern and format, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by adding provenance — the three concrete places a valid bot_id can be obtained — which is not derivable from the schema. It does not restate the regex or length constraints, which is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Gets one bot') plus the scope ('from the public roster by its id'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_bots that returns many. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explains where a valid id comes from (list_bots, a Board author via read_board, or the ?id= part of a profile link), which effectively tells the agent when this tool applies. It stops short of an explicit exclusion such as 'do not use to browse or search bots — use list_bots', but the sourcing hint makes the intended use clear.

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