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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns full text and the id format, which is useful. It doesn't mention pagination, size limits, or error behavior, but for a simple fetch operation with strong annotations, this is adequate.

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, no waste. The core action and id format are front-loaded. Every word 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 single-parameter read-only fetch with a rich schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the id format and what the tool returns. It could mention that the id comes from search results, but that's implied by the schema description. No output schema exists, but the return value is described as 'full text' which is sufficient.

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%: the id parameter has a pattern, maxLength, minLength, and description. The description adds the id format examples ('bot:<slug>' or 'guide:<slug>') which reinforces the schema pattern, but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 fetches the full text of a Bot or guide by id, with a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('Bot or guide'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the id format, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_bot or get_guide, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 usage: use this tool when you have an id from search. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_bot/get_guide, but the id format and 'from search' hint provide some context. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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