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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world traits, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: reviews are capped at 20 newest, reviews are anonymous, and a haunt with no reviews returns an empty list rather than erroring. It does not mention failure behavior for a bad slug/id.

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 tight sentences: return contents first, then usage trigger, then input sourcing, then edge-case behavior. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still previews the payload and the 20-review cap. Combined with full annotation coverage and a fully described 2-param schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds that either the slug or the haunt id may be passed and that the slug originates from sibling tool results, which is marginal value beyond 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 (Get) and resource (one haunt) plus the exact fields returned: description, category, season, location, average ratings, and newest reviews. This clearly separates it from the sibling find/list tools, which return multiple haunts rather than a single full record.

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?

Explicitly says to call it 'after scaremap_find_haunts or scaremap_find_haunts_in_city when the user wants detail on a specific result,' naming both alternatives and the condition that selects this tool. It also tells the agent where the required input comes from ('Pass the slug from those results').

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