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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description's 'getirir' (fetches) is consistent with these annotations, adding no contradiction. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide — essentially just that it retrieves a single record by id.

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 a single short sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are stated efficiently, and nothing is wasted. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what it does and how it is invoked. Combined with the annotations (readOnly, openWorld) and a fully validated uuid schema, little else is needed for correct invocation.

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 schema itself carries no descriptive text for the id parameter. The description does reference 'id ile' (by id), confirming that the id is the lookup key. For a single required uuid parameter, the semantics are mostly self-evident from the schema's format/pattern constraints, and the description adds a small amount of clarifying value.

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 (getirir/get), a specific resource (fikri/idea), and the lookup mechanism (id ile/by id). This is clear and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling get tools like xplanner_get_post or xplanner_get_folder — though the name itself carries the resource distinction.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xplanner_list_ideas or the other get_* tools. No when/when-not conditions or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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