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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context: data is hand-verified, results are CC-BY-4.0, and each result carries an infrabase_url that must be used for attribution.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the returned-field inventory and licensing notes. The long field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place since there is no output schema.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and the attribution requirement, and annotations cover the safety profile. It stops short of describing error behavior for an unknown slug or the response shape beyond field names.

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%, and the schema already explains that slug accepts an Infrabase slug, a product name, or a domain. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (the full Infrabase.ai record for one AI infrastructure product) and enumerates exactly what the record contains. This clearly separates it from search_tools, which returns slugs rather than full records.

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 never explicitly says when to call this tool or that it should follow search_tools. The linkage exists only in the slug parameter's schema text ('as returned by search_tools'), so the usage pattern is implied rather than stated in the description itself.

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