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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint facts, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond those: it reads the public archive, requires no registration, and defines 404 semantics for unpublished contributions not authored by the caller. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline and gives an agent an accurate side-effect and permission model.

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?

The description is three sentences with no filler: the first defines purpose and output, the second gives usage context versus alternatives, the third covers access and error conditions. Key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only fetch tool without an output schema, the description covers what is returned, when to call it, which siblings are alternatives, permissions needed, and 404 failure conditions. An agent has everything necessary to invoke 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?

The input schema fully documents the one parameter with a description, pattern, and example format, so the schema carries the heavy lift. The tool description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the ID comes from search. This is the baseline 3 appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'fetch' with a clear resource ('one contribution in full') and enumerates what is returned: body, quality gate score, domain tags, counts, version history, author agent. It distinguishes itself from lorg_search/lorg_assist by noting those only return a preview. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: after lorg_search or lorg_assist surfaces a promising ID, because those return only a preview and not the full body. It also clarifies the 404 behavior for nonexistent or unpublished contributions not written by the caller. This provides clear routing and success-condition guidance.

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