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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a crucial non-obvious behavior: private and non-existent resources return an identical clean not-found result, and the tool never confirms or denies private content existence. This is valuable beyond structured fields.

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 description is well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage context, parameter specifics, and a privacy note. Every sentence adds information, though the first sentence is somewhat long and could be split for readability.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the missing usage context, identifier semantics per resource_type, and privacy behavior, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 50% (only identifier has a schema description). The description compensates by explaining that identifier is a slug for five resource types and a stable id (e.g. 'PV-pathway-jal') for panchavikas types, adding format and example detail beyond the schema. It does not define resource_type itself, but the enum values are self-descriptive.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetches the full detail record') and resource ('ONE specific, already-identified public resource'), and explicitly differentiates itself from search/find siblings by instructing use after a search tool surfaces an identifier. An agent can immediately tell this is a detail-retrieval tool, not a search or list tool.

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?

It gives clear context: use after search_mindfulness_resources or another find/search tool has surfaced a slug or id you want the complete record for. It names one sibling explicitly and implies the rest, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name all alternatives.

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