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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the 'not found' case can mean the story has no graph (culture/research modes or older transforms), which is non-obvious and helps an agent interpret empty results correctly.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, why it matters, and a critical edge-case clarification. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is no 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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: return format, use case, and a key edge case. It doesn't describe the exact node/edge structure, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make this acceptable.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter. The description adds the note that ids contain slashes and should be passed verbatim, which is useful, but it doesn't add much beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a story's extraction map as graph data (nodes + edges), not a picture, and distinguishes it from a generic 'get' by naming the resource and format. It also differentiates from siblings like get_article by emphasizing the graph artifact.

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?

The description implies when to use it: when you need the extraction map as structured graph data for re-rendering or analysis. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the 'not a picture' clarification provide enough context for an agent to select it appropriately.

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