get_chapter_by_id_endpoint

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on auth requirements, missing-ID behavior, or what happens for unknown project/chapter combinations.

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 words are not conciseness but under-specification; there is no front-loaded scope, no constraint, and no second sentence to earn its place. It is too small to convey anything an agent needs.

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 tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotation gaps, the description should at minimum identify the resource being fetched and its relationship to get_chapters. Nothing beyond the bare name is provided.

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%, with both required parameters (project_id, chapter_id) individually documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description contributes no additional meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.

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?

"Get Chapter" merely restates the tool name/title (get_chapter_by_id_endpoint / "Get Chapter By Id Endpoint") without adding scope. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like get_chapters, get_chapter_snapshot_endpoint, or get_chapter_snapshots, leaving the agent unable to tell which retrieval variant applies.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. With siblings such as get_chapters and get_chapter_snapshot_endpoint in the same namespace, the absence of any routing hint forces the agent to guess from names alone.

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