Get idea

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond annotations or schema - no note on behavior when the id does not exist, no error semantics - so it contributes little behavioral context.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but it wastes nothing.

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 an output schema present the description need not enumerate return fields, and annotations cover the read-only profile, so the minimal text is passable. However, for a retrieval-by-id tool it omits any handling note for missing/invalid ids, leaving a modest gap.

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% for the single 'id' parameter (minimum 1), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

The description gives a clear verb+resource pair ('Return the full record for one idea'), and the singular 'one idea' implicitly distinguishes it from list_ideas and search_ideas. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a valid id must be obtained first), and no routing to alternatives such as search_ideas or list_ideas. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and singular phrasing.

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