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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows the safety profile before reading the description. The description adds only the provenance of the `id` value, saying nothing about what happens on an unknown/legacy ID, error behavior, or the granularity of returned content. Useful but thin relative to what annotations already cover.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the workflow dependency is placed inside the purpose statement rather than padded into a separate clause.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition is functional but leaves the agent guessing about the shape and scope of "detailed content" and about failure modes for invalid IDs. Those gaps are modest, but the description does no work to close them.

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% and the `id` property description is unusually rich (canonical project/section/slug, legacy forms, how to synthesize an ID from a link). The description only reinforces that the ID originates from `search`, which is already implied, so it stays at the baseline rather than adding meaning.

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?

"Gets detailed content for documentation by ID" gives a specific verb (gets), resource (documentation content), and a selector (ID). It also implies the contrast with the `search` sibling, which returns the IDs this tool consumes, though it never states the contrast as an explicit rule.

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 phrase "by ID returned from the `search` tool" establishes the intended two-step workflow: search first, fetch second. There are no exclusions or edge-case guidance (e.g., what to do when search returns nothing), but the positive usage context is clear.

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