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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add real behavioral detail — default returns the best version of each kind without figures, while detail=full returns every version — which materially changes the payload. It does not state what happens for an unknown or unpublished concept id, leaving the main failure mode unexplained.

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, front-loaded with the return format, then the detail-mode contrast, then usage. The parenthetical list of content kinds is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what to expect. Minor cost: the detail-mode clause is embedded mid-sentence and slightly tangled.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so well (Markdown page structure, ordering, live-versions-only). For a read-only three-parameter tool this is nearly sufficient; the gap is error behavior for nonexistent concepts and no mention of size or truncation for detail=full.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description meaningfully expands the `detail` enum by explaining what brief versus full actually include (best-per-kind sans figures vs. every version), but says nothing about `lang` beyond the schema's own 'English by default', and never spells out the concept-id slug format that the schema does document.

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 ('One concept's page as Markdown') and enumerates the page's contents: what it is, prerequisites, and live versions by kind. An agent can distinguish it from write-oriented siblings like submit_version or propose_concept, though it never explicitly contrasts with search or compare_versions.

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?

Gives two concrete triggers: 'when the person wants to study that concept' and 'before adding to it' (i.e., prior to proposing or revising content). It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, such as using search first to resolve a concept id, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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