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 safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only "full details," which restates purpose rather than disclosing behavior – nothing about not-found errors, private-board permission requirements, or whether the returned payload is truncated.

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 well-formed sentence with the lookup key front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leans toward under-specification rather than crisp completeness.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the private-board access nuance (allow_private) and the routing against search/list siblings are left entirely to the schema and tool list.

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 100%, including the non-obvious allow_private flag that is required for posts on private boards. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema ("by its ID" merely restates the required parameter), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Get full details of a single feature request by its ID" states a specific verb (get), resource (feature request), scope (single), and lookup key (ID). The word "single" implicitly contrasts with list_feature_requests and search_feature_requests, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 says nothing about when to choose this over list_feature_requests, search_feature_requests, or get_comment. The only implied guidance is that the caller must already know the ID, and there is no mention of what to do when only a name or search term is available.

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