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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: the required key scope, the guarantee of unfiltered per-language content, and an explicit prompt-injection caveat that returned text is data, not instructions — a security note no annotation provides.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler. The operation and scope are front-loaded, and the injection warning is appended last where it belongs. Every clause carries information.

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 usefully previews the return payload (all languages, _meta, status, dates) and the scope requirement. The only gap is error behavior — it doesn't state what happens for a missing or unpublished entry id — which is minor for a simple read tool.

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%, so id, site, and collection are already documented (including the pointer to list_entries and list_sites). The description adds nothing about parameter usage beyond implying no language filter; the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.

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 ('Read one CMS entry as stored') and even enumerates the payload shape (every language and _meta, status, dates). The phrase 'as stored' implicitly separates it from get_entry_preview/get_draft/get_entry_revision, but no sibling is named so the differentiation must be inferred.

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 implies the read-one-entry case and flags the required scope ('key scope content:read'), which is a useful prerequisite. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_entry_preview, get_entry_revision, get_draft, or list_entries, so the agent must guess among four plausible siblings.

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