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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the result includes source and provenance metadata and that the operation is FREE, which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotation. It does not mention error handling or availability, but for a simple read-only get-by-id tool this is acceptable.

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 one short sentence with the action, resource, and key scope all front-loaded. 'FREE.' is an extra but brief cost signal, and every clause adds meaning. There is no unnecessary repetition of the tool 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 single-parameter lookup with a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is mostly complete: it states what is retrieved and what metadata is included. There is no output schema, so the description partly covers return expectations, but it does not mention what happens when no topic is found or whether the topic body itself is fully included.

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 only parameter is id, and the schema already enforces its pattern and maxLength. The description adds context by saying the id identifies a canonical Bitcoin Knowledge Atlas topic, which is helpful but does not add format details beyond the schema. For a single simple parameter with 0% schema description coverage, this is adequate.

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 names a specific verb (Retrieve), a specific resource (canonical Bitcoin Knowledge Atlas topic), and the lookup key (by id), plus the additional output context (source and provenance metadata). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_bitcoin_knowledge or get_bitcoin_evidence_pack, which are not canonical single-topic lookups by id.

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 implies the tool should be used when you already have a topic id and want the canonical single topic, but it does not explicitly contrast this with search_bitcoin_knowledge or other alternatives. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of sibling tools, so the agent must infer the right context.

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