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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: no auth required, CC-licensed source, and the specific metadata categories returned. It does not contradict the 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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the verb, resource, and key parameter, then lists returned fields; the second adds source/licensing/auth notes. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler.

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 a single required parameter, a rich output schema, and safe-read annotations, the description provides all needed invocation context: where the ID comes from, what data will be returned, and that no authentication is required. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

The input schema description already fully covers article_id (100% coverage) with type, minimum, and example, and also mentions it comes from figshare.search. The description only repeats this provenance, adding little beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Get full metadata for a Figshare research article'), identifies the key parameter (article_id), and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly differentiated from siblings like figshare.articles.search and zenodo.records.detail by explicitly scoping to Figshare articles.

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 tells the agent the input comes from figshare.search ('by its article_id (from figshare.search)'), which implicitly routes the workflow to search first, then details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and sufficient.

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