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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions a read operation ('get'), but does not disclose any additional details such as required permissions, data size limits, or response characteristics. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key input. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a minimal but acceptable level of completeness. It explains what the tool does and what input it requires, but lacks information about the output format or any constraints. This is adequate for a simple lookup tool but could be more informative.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% and only one parameter 'id' (type: string), the description adds minimal semantic value by specifying 'by id'. However, it does not clarify the format or source of the id, nor how to obtain it. For a single-parameter tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

The description 'Get the full entry for one bias by id' clearly specifies the action (get), resource (full entry for one bias), and required input (id). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_biases (which likely lists all) and analyze_decision (which analyzes a decision).

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 explicitly states the scenario for using this tool: retrieving a single bias's full details by its id. While it does not provide explicit exclusion criteria or alternatives, the context of sibling tools list_biases and analyze_decision implicitly guides usage for single-object retrieval.

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