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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the payload contents (post, position, top replies, drafts) -- effectively a return-value contract given there is no output schema.

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 sentence, no filler, resource and return contents front-loaded. Every clause carries information about what is retrieved.

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?

A read-only single-record fetch with rich annotations and no output schema; the description covers what is returned, which is the main open question. It falls short only on when to prefer this over list_cues or the report tools.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a UUID format, pattern and the hint that the id comes from list_cues. The description adds nothing about the id itself, which is fine given the schema does the work; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb implied (fetch/read) plus a concrete resource, and it enumerates exactly what the caller gets back: the post, its location, top replies, and existing drafts. It does not explicitly contrast with list_cues or weekly_report, so sibling differentiation comes only from the schema's reference to list_cues.

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 never states when to call this versus list_cues (bulk listing) or weekly_report (aggregate). The only usage cue is in the input schema's 'The cue id from list_cues.' which implies the list-then-fetch flow but is not part of the description.

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