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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: ownership scoping ('error if the idea id does not belong to the signed-in user') and the fact that each failing readiness check includes a specific fix, which shapes how an agent should interpret and act on results.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the framing question, then a literal return shape. The 'Returns:' line is a compact structural aid rather than prose padding, and nothing is redundant.

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, and the description compensates by spelling out the returned object's keys including the readiness entry shape ({ key, label, ready, fix }). Combined with the error condition, an agent has enough to call it and interpret the response without opening anything else.

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% with two parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It does convey that ideaId scopes to a user-owned idea, but it never explains the response_format enum (markdown vs json) or the id's expected form, leaving one of two parameters entirely to the bare 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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Get one idea in detail') and then enumerates exactly what that detail contains: setup progress, readiness checklist, active runs, recent runs. The word 'one' implicitly separates it from idealaunch_list_ideas, so an agent can tell the single-record fetch apart from the listing tool.

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 gives clear situational context by framing the tool as the answer to 'is this idea ready to test?', which tells an agent when to reach for it. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g., list_ideas to find an id, get_ad_run for run-level detail) or stating exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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