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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-structured behavioral fact — hidden/deleted questions return 404 — but says nothing about the shape or size of a successful response, which matters for a tool with no output schema.

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 short sentences with zero waste: the core operation is front-loaded and the failure condition follows. Nothing redundant with the name or title.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read this is close to adequate, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema the description should at least sketch what a successful read returns (question text, author, timestamps, replies?) — an agent cannot tell whether it gets a bare question or an aggregate.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description must compensate; 'by id' establishes that the id identifies one question, but it adds no format, sourcing, or uniqueness guidance beyond the schema's type/maxLength. Marginal value over a baseline 3.

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 public question by id'), which clearly separates it from the list-shaped sibling list_threads. It does not explicitly contrast with the remaining siblings (get_current_prompt, get_status), but the singular/plural distinction is inferable without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' plus the single required parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. 'use list_threads to enumerate, list_replies for answers'). The 404 clause documents an edge case rather than routing guidance.

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