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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description's job is the content contract, and it delivers: exact sections returned (latest version/date, upgrade command, last five releases, help diff, breaking changes, reproduced errors with fixes, monthly history, sources). What's missing is any note on behavior for unknown names or empty histories.

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 front-loaded sentence with the return contract first and the accepted input forms last; every clause is substantive. The long enumerations make it dense, though none of the items are filler.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly for a single-item lookup. It omits only edge-case behavior such as an unrecognized tool id, which is a modest gap for this tool's complexity.

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 the single parameter already carries an example list, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the id-vs-common-name distinction and a few extra aliases (app-store-connect-cli, codex-cli), a marginal but real expansion 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Return one tool page as Markdown') and enumerates the payload, which clearly separates it from list_tools and get_post. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring 'one tool page' is not a post or a list.

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 only implied: knowing it returns one tool's page suggests it is for looking up a single known tool. There is no statement of when to prefer it over list_tools or search_posts, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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