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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that results are unshortened full text, but says nothing about error behavior for a missing id or the response shape.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the identity ('one idea card by id') and immediately followed by the differentiating fact. Nothing wasted.

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 one-param read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: identity, selection criteria, and the full-text nuance. Only the return structure/failure mode remains unstated, which is acceptable here.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Idea id from list_ideas'), the schema does the work. The description only echoes the id-based lookup, adding no format or provenance detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('One idea card by id') plus the key differentiator from the sibling: this returns full text while list_ideas shortens long ones. An agent can distinguish it from list_ideas without opening either schema.

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 parenthetical naming list_ideas as the source of ids and the truncating alternative gives clear context for when to pick this tool. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when you need full body text, not for discovery' exclusion, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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