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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup. The description adds an ordering behavior with 'clearest first,' but it does not define what that ordering means, nor does it describe missing-id behavior or result limits beyond the schema.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which suits a simple lookup tool. However, the phrase 'clearest first' is vague enough that it reduces clarity rather than adding useful structure.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with full schema coverage and clear read-only annotations, so the core description is adequate. Still, with no output schema, it could say more about what a topic returns and what happens when the id is not found.

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%, and both parameters are already described as the topic id or title and the number of passages to return. The description adds no parameter details beyond those schema descriptions, so the baseline of 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 that this returns one topic along with its passages, which distinguishes it from list_topics and from passage-search tools. It is not an explicit verb-plus-resource statement, and it never names a sibling alternative, but the singular scope is clear.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. The only pointer to a related tool appears in the schema for the id parameter, not in the description itself.

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