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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that related records can be sideloaded and notes the admin API endpoint, but says nothing about return shape, not-found behavior, or auth requirements beyond the admin path.

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 purpose and the optional sideload behavior are front-loaded before the endpoint reference.

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 single-record GET with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. The absence of an output schema means it could say more about the sideloaded `included` payload, but nothing essential for invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema, including the `included` sideload target. The description's enumeration of related record types (forum, category, status, labels, users, status updates) merely restates the includes enum and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 with singular scope: 'One suggestion (idea) by id, optionally with related records.' The word 'One' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_suggestions, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 only implied – retrieving a single record by id suggests fetching a known suggestion, versus list_suggestions for browsing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.

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