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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is not obliged to restate safety. It adds real value by disclosing the return payload (critique, sharpening questions, risks, recommended route, promotion target) and by surfacing the revision-token workflow dependency, which no annotation conveys.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first defines scope and payload, the second defines the sequencing dependency. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations, and the scope statement is front-loaded.

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-read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back and why an agent would call it before update_idea. The only meaningful gap is the identifier semantics of ideaId, which neither the schema nor the description supplies.

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?

There is one parameter (ideaId) at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate for the missing format/identifier details. It implies the parameter identifies a single idea but never states the ID format, source, or whether it accepts slugs versus UUIDs. The revision-token mention is about update_idea's input, not this tool's parameter.

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 ('Read one idea in full') and enumerates the payload it returns: AI feedback pass components and the promotion target. This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling list_ideas, which an agent can rule out without opening either schema.

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 names a sibling and the ordering constraint: 'Read this before update_idea so you can pass expectedUpdateRevision.' That is clear when-to-use guidance with a concrete reason. It stops short of stating when not to use it or pointing at list_ideas for browsing, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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