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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior and lower the bar. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying that the response includes metadata, full source text, and translation formatted as Markdown. No contradictions or hidden side effects are present.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and retrieval method. Every phrase adds information, with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 simple single-getter with one well-documented parameter, read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It even highlights the Markdown formatting detail, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it 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 100%, and the speechId parameter is already documented as a uuid. The description only restates 'by id' without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but adds no further parameter insight.

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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('single Tutorializer speech'), and the lookup method ('by id'). This clearly differentiates it from list_speeches and other resource-specific getters like get_project or get_video.

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 clearly implies use when retrieving one speech by its id, and the 'single' wording distinguishes it from list_speeches. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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