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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context not in the annotations: the metered cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run'). It omits failure behavior and rate limits, but the cost disclosure is real added value.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and identifier guidance followed by the return-field list. The field enumeration is long but earns its place by previewing what the agent gets back in the absence of an output schema. No filler.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (rating, categories, pricing, pros/cons, etc.), and annotations already carry the safety profile. It is close to complete, with only explicit sibling routing missing.

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 there is only one parameter, whose format (slug or Futurepedia URL, e.g. midjourney) is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by slug or URL' merely restates the schema and adds no syntax or validation detail, so the baseline 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 and resource ('Get one AI tool from Futurepedia') and scopes it to a single item via slug or URL, which cleanly separates it from the search/categories/alternatives/reviews siblings. The field enumeration further confirms the resource's identity. An agent can distinguish it from run_futurepedia_tools_search without opening either 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?

'by slug or URL' implies the caller must already have a specific identifier, which hints at a two-step lookup flow, but the description never names run_futurepedia_tools_search as the way to obtain one, nor states when to prefer this over run_theresanaiforthat_tools. Usage is only implied, not explicit.

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