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

Annotations already declare this a safe, non-destructive, non-open-world read. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it returns the node with its edges, and version switches retrieval to a historical snapshot rather than the live record. It stops short of mentioning auth or permission requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the core action and its id forms come first, and the read-full-body guidance and version behavior follow in priority order.

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 read tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), annotations covering safety, and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, how to call it, and when to prefer it over siblings.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it lists additional id prefixes (DIAG-N, EPIC-N) not present in the id property description, and clarifies that version retrieves a snapshot 'instead of the current one.'

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 and resource ('Fetch one node in full by its shareable id ... with its edges') and enumerates the accepted id prefixes. It also differentiates itself from siblings by contrasting with recall/search, which return summaries only.

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 explicitly routes the agent: use this (not recall/search) when you need a full body, and use the version parameter when you want a historical snapshot instead of the current one. Both the when and the alternative are named.

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