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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them – that only published, public resources are retrievable, implying unpublished ids fail – but says nothing about auth requirements or the shape of a not-found response.

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 eight-word sentence with the resource and the published/public constraint front-loaded. There is no filler; the terseness is a coverage problem, not a structural one.

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 should say something about what a returned resource looks like or how absence is signalled, and it does not. It also omits the language parameter entirely, leaving a caller unable to know it can request English content.

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 description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only echoes the required id parameter without explaining its pattern or meaning. The optional language parameter (enum zh-CN/en, default zh-CN) is never mentioned, so an agent would not learn from the description that localized retrieval is even possible.

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 (get) and resource, plus a meaningful scope qualifier: only one published public resource, retrieved by id. That scoping already separates it in spirit from list_resources, though it never names the sibling or states the list-vs-single relationship 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_resources for discovery, and no statement about what happens when the id is unknown or the resource is not public. The only usage signal is the implicit 'by id', which the schema's required field already conveys.

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