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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: node IDs may collide across projects, and translation-project, auto-topic, and publication nodes are immutable. That immutability note matters even for a read tool because it tells the agent not to plan follow-up mutations on the result. It does not describe error behavior when a node is missing.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the opening sentence, and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct fact (ID scoping, immutability classes, publication read-only). It runs slightly long for a two-parameter read tool, with two sentences devoted to mutability that a caller of a read-only getter may not need.

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 description is the only source of return-value information, and it offers just "single TOC node with parent/sibling context" without indicating which node fields come back or how the parent/sibling context is shaped. The safety and scoping story is complete, but the result shape an agent must reason over is left vague.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's note that IDs "may duplicate across different projects" reinforces why projectId is required, but this largely restates the schema's own "unique within the project scope" wording rather than adding new semantics.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Returns single TOC node") plus the distinguishing scope ("with parent/sibling context for understanding node position"), which separates it from bulk siblings like get_toc_tree and get_child_toc_nodes. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required nodeId signals this is for fetching one already-known node, and the parent/sibling context hints at when to prefer it over a full tree walk. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative among get_toc_tree, get_child_toc_nodes, or find_toc_nodes.

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