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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get full details' reasonably signals a read-only, non-destructive lookup, but there is no disclosure of what happens with an unknown slug (error vs. null), whether results are cached, or any rate limits — meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the examples placed where they help most. There is no filler and nothing an agent must scan past to reach the operative information.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers what the tool does and what identifies the record. It lacks error/empty-result behavior and any hint at return shape, but the tool's simplicity keeps those omissions minor.

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 both the slug and the optional lang enum are already documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description's inline slug examples add light confirmation of slug format but nothing about the lang parameter or fallback behavior when a translation is missing.

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?

"Get full details for a single AI tool by slug" names a specific verb (get), resource (AI tool), and scope (single, by slug), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_categories and search_ai_tools. Concrete examples ("cursor", "stable-diffusion") reinforce what a slug looks like. It stops just short of naming the siblings directly.

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 'single ... by slug' phrasing implies this is the detail-lookup tool to use once you already have a slug, which is useful implied routing. However, it never states when to prefer it over search_ai_tools or what to do if you only have a name rather than a slug, so the when/when-not guidance is left to inference.

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