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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world); the description adds the two things annotations cannot convey: space-admin permission requirement and the API-key scope `wiki:spaces:read`. It does not disclose how a taken/duplicate slug is reported (return payload flag vs. tool error), which is the one behavior an agent most needs here.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core check and followed by return, invocation trigger, and permissions/scope. Little waste, though "Returns a SlugAvailabilityDTO" is a typename that conveys structure but not meaning.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and "Returns a SlugAvailabilityDTO" does not say what the agent will learn (available boolean, formatting error reason, suggested alternative). For a pre-flight validation tool that is a meaningful gap, even though permissions, scope, and invocation context are well covered.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by tying the `slug` parameter to the `customSlug` concept in wiki_set_public_settings, clarifying that it is a candidate public URL segment rather than an internal page slug. It does not add anything on `account` or `workspace`, but those are already well documented 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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (public URL slug) plus the two things checked: availability and formatting validity, scoped to a space. It also names the sibling it is consumed alongside (wiki_set_public_settings), so an agent can distinguish it from other wiki_* tools without opening the schema.

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?

"Call this when choosing a `customSlug` for wiki_set_public_settings" gives an explicit trigger and names the companion tool, which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of saying when NOT to call it (e.g. for an already-published slug, or that it is a pre-flight check only and does not reserve the slug), so 4 rather than 5.

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