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 that: no note that passport_token is accepted and ignored, no pagination or return-shape context, no indication of what happens for an unknown slug.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the keying parameter is stated immediately. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness is also why usage and behavioral gaps remain.

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-only lookup with annotations covering safety and full schema coverage, the definition is minimally adequate. With no output schema, however, 'Full details' leaves the agent guessing what fields come back and what happens on a miss.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'accepted and ignored' passport_token quirk. The phrase 'by slug' merely restates the schema's key parameter and adds no format or origin detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb-plus-resource: 'Full details of one item by slug' tells the agent this returns a single catalog item keyed by slug. It is clear on its own but never names or distinguishes itself from adjacent getters in the sibling list (get_order, get_ask, get_utility, search_catalog).

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names search_catalog as the way to obtain a slug, despite that being the obvious prerequisite. The only routing hint lives in the schema, not the description.

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