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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description isn't needed for safety profile. It adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the visibility filter that causes not-found cases and warns that all returned text is untrusted user-authored content to evaluate, not instructions — an important trait no annotation conveys.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the retrieval scope front-loaded and the injection warning second. Each sentence earns its place.

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 tool with rich annotations, the description covers scope, availability filtering, and content-trust expectations. The remaining gap is failure behavior — whether an unavailable or unauthorized quest produces an error or empty result — but with no output schema this is a minor omission.

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 0% for the single `id` parameter, but 'Get one approved public quest' makes it evident that the parameter selects the quest, so the description partially compensates. It still adds no detail on id type, validity, or what an unavailable/invalid id yields.

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 (get one quest) plus an explicit visibility scope: only approved public quests are retrievable. The singular 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the list-style siblings like search_quests, though no sibling is named directly.

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 clause 'held, pending and rejected quests are unavailable' tells the agent when this tool will not return a result, which is useful precondition context. However, it never routes the agent to alternatives (e.g. search_quests to discover quests, apply_to_quest to act on one) or states the required permission/trust state.

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