get_bookmark

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds the 'positive ID' constraint, but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as not-found behavior or response characteristics. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the identifying constraint is included efficiently.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description is complete. No prerequisites, side effects, or return-value explanations are necessary.

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 compensate. It does by explaining that bookmark_id is a Raindrop.io ID and must be positive, which adds meaningful validation context beyond the bare integer type in the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get one bookmark' by its 'positive Raindrop.io ID.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like list_collections or search_bookmarks by specifying a single item lookup by ID.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need a single bookmark and already know its ID. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_bookmarks for finding bookmarks without an ID.

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