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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile, so the description's burden is lower. 'Returns full tool details' adds modest behavioral context, though the output schema already documents return values. Error behavior (e.g., behavior on a nonexistent ID) is not disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant restating of the schema or annotations.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, read-only, output schema present), and annotations plus the output schema carry the safety and return-value details. The description covers the core purpose but leaves gaps: it does not route the agent to list_tools for sourcing the ID or enumerating tools, and it lacks usage context. Adequate but not rich.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'by its ID' maps tool_id to the tool's identifier, adding meaning beyond the bare schema (string, uuid format, required). For a single self-explanatory parameter this is adequate, but it adds no depth on format or constraints beyond what the schema states.

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 (Read) + resource (tool) + identifier qualifier (by its ID), making the purpose unmistakable. It implicitly distinguishes from list_tools (singular read vs. all tools). However, it does not explicitly name the siblings it is NOT (e.g., read_node), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus list_tools (for enumerating tools) or update_tool (for modifying a tool). There is no 'use when' language, no mention of what the tool_id should come from, and no exclusions. The description is a single sentence with zero usage context.

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