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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the return content (title, blocks, type properties), but does not go deeper into behavior such as error handling or pagination. With annotations present, this is an acceptable but not rich level of transparency.

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 that immediately states the action and resource. It contains no redundant information and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

This is a simple retrieval tool with only two required parameters, a fully described schema, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations. The description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. A minor gap is that it does not mention that entryId can be a title, but this is covered in the schema, so the overall completeness is high.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions (entryId as hex or exact title, campaignId as campaign ID). The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get full details of a specific mnemon entry') and lists the content included (title, blocks, type properties). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mnemons or search_mnemons, which list or find entries rather than fetch full details for a specific one.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a specific mnemon entry ID or title and need its full details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'specific' and 'full details' phrasing provides sufficient usage context. Sibling tools like list_mnemons suggest a contrast, but this is not stated.

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