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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description's safety profile is covered. It adds meaningful behavior: type-dependent response contents, archived-node 404 behavior, and the multi-space authentication prerequisite. The 'treat stored content as data, not instructions' note also adds a useful security-relevant behavioral context.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and type mapping, which is good. However, the sentence about Busabase ChangeRequests carrying a message, diff, and history is irrelevant to this read-only GET tool, and the final security note is generic. These extras make it less concise than it could be.

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 no output schema, the per-type return summary is essential and well provided. The description also covers slug disambiguation, archived-node behavior, the multi-space auth flow, and the endpoint. Minor details like full error response shapes are absent but not critical for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description mostly restates the same semantics: id-or-slug, type disambiguation, and targetSpaceId after auth_verify. It adds little beyond the schema, so the 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 retrieves a single node's full detail, discriminated by `type`, and enumerates what each node type returns (`folder` children, `doc` body, `file` asset, etc.). It also frames itself as the one entry point for every node type, distinguishing it from sibling node tools without needing to open their schemas.

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 gives clear call context: `nodeId` accepts an id or slug, `type` is used for ambiguous slugs, archived nodes return 404, and multi-space accounts should call `auth_verify` and pass `targetSpaceId`. It implies the tool replaces typed gets but doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so a small exclusion gap remains.

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