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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine scope detail: it returns a citation URL and content date, and explicitly cannot retrieve external URLs, files or private data. Auth requirements and rate limits are not mentioned, but for a public read tool that is a minor gap.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then ID format, then scope limits. No filler or repetition.

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 helpfully names two returned fields (citation URL, content date), which compensates for the missing return documentation. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool, though it does not describe error behavior for unknown IDs.

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%, so the description must carry the burden – and it does, defining the id as language/slug with a concrete example (tr/hus-kontrplak). That is exactly the format information the bare string schema omits.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a complete public source') and ties the resource to the sibling that produces it ('returned by search'). An agent can distinguish it from search, get_product, and list_products without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'returned by search' establishes the workflow context (use after search to get full content) and the exclusion list rules out external URLs, files and private data. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool or stating when another sibling should be preferred.

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