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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral detail: what is returned (full text, Markdown or JSON), how fragment ids select a single record, and the caller obligation to cite the returned url. No permission, rate-limit, or truncation behavior is mentioned, so it stops short of 5.

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?

One dense sentence plus a short imperative ('Cite the returned url.'), with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries usable information.

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 return-value burden and does so adequately: it names the response content types and the single-record case. For a one-parameter idempotent fetch, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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% and the id forms are already documented there, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each form yields — a whole dataset versus a single record via `#<record id>` or a permalink. That semantic distinction is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 ('Return the full text of a BOZOS resource by id') and enumerates the payload types returned (Markdown guide/note, JSON dataset). It implicitly contrasts with the `search` sibling by naming it as the id source, so an agent can distinguish retrieval from discovery.

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?

Explains where valid ids come from ('from `search`, or from https://bozos.si/content-index.json') and when to use the record-fragment form versus a plain dataset id. It does not state explicit exclusions or when to prefer `search`, but the routing context is clear.

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