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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes further: it discloses the 8 KB content cap with a 'more in app' trailer, the returned fields (title, content blob, url deep-link), and the not_found behavior for invalid or inaccessible ids.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and free of filler, though the id format/provenance is stated in both the first and second sentences, a minor redundancy in an otherwise tight four-sentence description.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return payload and error behavior; combined with the provenance requirement, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the MUST-provenance constraint and the concrete `<type>:<cuid>` format with an example, meaningfully enriching the single parameter beyond the schema text.

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 and resource: 'Retrieve full content for one resource by id.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling `search` tool and from the many `get_*` siblings by framing itself as the full-body fetch.

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?

Explicitly says to use it AFTER `search` when the full body of a specific result is needed, and constrains the id to one previously returned by `search`. The alternative (search) and the sequencing condition are both named.

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