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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description isn't burdened with safety disclosure. It still adds genuine context beyond them: the ownership scoping rule and the failure mode (error when the idea is missing or owned by someone else), which an agent needs to anticipate error responses. It doesn't describe response shape in detail, but no output schema exists and the key returned fields are listed.

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: what it returns first, the edit workflow second, the error condition last. No filler, and the most important content is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the return contents, the ownership constraint, the error case, and the follow-on tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 the single id parameter is already documented as 'taken from a search or a listing'. The description adds no syntax, range, or lookup guidance beyond that, so it earns the baseline rather than more.

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+resource+scope: fetch a single content idea owned by the signed-in user, returning full text, status and project. The singular 'one idea' plus the ownership restriction cleanly separates it from list-ideas and from the sibling get_* tools for other resources.

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?

Presents a concrete workflow: read the text, revise it, then hand the revision to update-idea — an explicit named alternative for the write path. It stops short of stating when to prefer it over list-ideas or search, but the 'fetch one' framing implies that.

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