Get by id

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description is consistent with (it says 'Return'). The description adds no additional behavioral details such as error handling, invalid id behavior, or output structure. With annotations covering the read-only nature, the description adds minimal value beyond what is already declared.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action immediately and uses precise language. This is appropriately concise with zero waste.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. It clarifies that it returns nodes by id, which is the core requirement. It does not mention the format parameter or potential error conditions, but the schema covers format, and the annotations cover safety. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could note that it returns multiple nodes or that format affects output.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are described in the schema. The description 'Return the nodes with the given ids' essentially restates the ids parameter without adding syntax, default behavior, or output format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('nodes with the given ids'), unambiguously identifying it as a fetch-by-id operation. It distinguishes from siblings like get_tree (whole tree) and get_children (children) because it specifically mentions 'given ids'. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bookmarks_get_tree or bookmarks_get_children. It merely states the action without any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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