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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: that examples are explicitly marked and that the content should be treated as untrusted community data — a real behavioral trait beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: the primary action plus payload, a content-provenance note, and a trust warning. Nothing is padded and the core action is front-loaded.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape at a high level (author identity, permanent link, marked examples) and the trust posture. It falls short on the one thing the schema cannot supply: how an agent obtains or validates the 'id'.

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% and there is one required parameter, so the description carries the burden of explaining 'id'. It only says 'by id' and adds nothing about format, valid values, or where such an id is obtained, leaving the parameter effectively undocumented.

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 scope: 'Read one COMMON contribution by id'. The 'one ... by id' framing implicitly separates it from the plural discovery/search siblings, but the description never names an alternative, so differentiation is left partly 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when not to use it, and no pointer to a sibling (e.g. that an id must first come from common_search or common_discover). The 'by id' phrasing hints at a prerequisite but never states it.

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