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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-annotation behavior: the node is rendered as a card in the conversation and includes specific fields. It does not cover error cases or permission needs, but for a simple read tool this is largely sufficient.

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 compact sentences that front-load the core purpose and then immediately handle the sibling distinction. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is complete: it states what is shown, how it is shown, and when to use it versus an alternative. No output schema exists, but the description already enumerates the card's visible fields, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, with both parameters (id and project_slug) fully documented in the schema, including format examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the structured field 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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('one Stele node'), enumerates node types (task, knowledge entry, document), and specifies what is displayed (title, status, body, links, provenance). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool fetch, so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit usage condition ('Use it when the user wants to see a node') and names the alternative for a different use case ('To read a node yourself, use fetch'). This cleanly routes the agent between showing to the user versus reading for itself.

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