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

The description discloses additional behavior beyond the read-only annotation, such as matching on title and slug and returning the public URL. It does not contradict the annotations and gives a clear picture that the tool is a read-only search.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of three sentences that front-load the primary purpose. It is well-structured, with no redundant or vague wording, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description adequately covers its main use cases, including the optional query behavior. While it does not specify the full output schema, it mentions returning the slug and URL, which is sufficient for this type of tool.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (lang, limit, query), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds little new information about the parameters themselves, only restating the behavior when query is omitted.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: finding a section slug for a subject or country. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining its role in narrowing other tools correctly.

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 provides usage context: it should be used before other tools to obtain section slugs, and calling with no query lists the entire section tree. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, though the implication is clear.

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