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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope about what the payload contains (TSP review state, Moon Catcher Wire editor state 'if one has been set'), which hints at conditional/nullable fields, but says nothing about pagination, auth, or error behavior on a bad id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope stated first and no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing clause about editor state is slightly compressed and could be clearer.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe the returned shape; it gestures at the review/editor state fields but leaves the rest of the story payload and any failure modes unexplained. For a simple one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but not fully complete.

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 0% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the description must carry the meaning; 'by its id' does confirm it is the story identifier, but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance (e.g., where the id comes from). Adequate but thin given the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('One story in full by its id') and clarifies the retrieval is a single full record rather than a list, which implicitly separates it from mcw-list-stories and mcw-search. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing.

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 implied by 'by its id' — use this when you already have a story id and need the whole record. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over mcw-list-stories or mcw-search, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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