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

Discloses behavioral specifics beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: summary truncation to 500 chars, structuredContent excluding full body, and the wissen_not_found error. These shape agent expectations about response content and failure modes, which is exactly the kind of additive transparency needed.

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?

Compact label-based structure (WHAT, REQUIRED, summary, structuredContent, NEXT) makes it scannable and front-loaded. Each section earns its place; slightly dense, but efficient for an agent parsing it at runtime.

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?

Complete for a read-only single-item fetch: output schema covers return structure, annotations cover safety, and description covers truncation, error, and next steps. Minor omission is explaining whether locale affects content language or only URLs, but overall adequate.

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?

Adds value by stating id must be an exact list_wissen item id, and clarifies locale prefix/default behavior. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description reinforces rather than compensates, but the error-case and content-shape details are useful semantic additions.

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 the exact resource ('One Wissen article'), the required parameter (id), and the key behavioral aspects upfront. The WHAT/NEXT structure makes it clear this is a single-item retrieval tool, distinguishing it from list_wissen and other get_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly says id is required and must come from list_wissen.items[].id, and documents the unknown-id error case. It doesn't explicitly contrast with list_wissen or other content getters, but the NEXT fallback (get_ai_page) gives some routing guidance. Slightly more explicit alternative guidance would push this higher.

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