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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real payload context the annotations do not — that repros are actually executed with captured output and runtime version, and non-Python/Node stacks are labelled 'documented' with a source. It doesn't say what happens on a missing/invalid id, which is the one behavioral gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the scope, followed by an enumeration of exhibit contents — dense but every clause maps to something the caller gets back. The content list is long; a slightly tighter phrasing would keep it at 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so in detail (assumption broken, exact input, failure mode, repros, fix, related exhibits, sources). Missing only error/not-found behavior, which is a minor omission for a read-only single-item fetch.

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 single id parameter already has an example, so baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining where ids come from (edge_cases_find or edge_cases_browse), which the schema does not state.

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 ('one exhibit in full by id') and immediately scopes it against the sibling list tools by naming edge_cases_find and edge_cases_browse as the sources of ids. An agent can tell this is the detail-fetch counterpart to those search tools without opening any 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?

The parenthetical '(from edge_cases_find or edge_cases_browse)' implicitly routes the agent: browse/find first, then get by id. There is no explicit when-not clause (e.g. what to do with an unknown id, or when the short list output is sufficient), so it stops short of a full usage rule set.

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