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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent annotations, the description discloses the return format (markdown-like body text with paragraphs, headings, checklists) and an important behavioral requirement (link back to canonical URL). Adds value without contradicting annotations.

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 core purpose. Every sentence contributes: what it does, why it's useful, and a required follow-up action. No wasted words.

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 simple parameter schema, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: retrieves full body content, notes editorial quality, and instructs linking back. Minor gap: no mention of how to obtain the slug or that creator_slug is optional, but schema covers this.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's explanations (slug and creator_slug), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches full details for a Tuki travel guide, emphasizing the body text in markdown-like format. This distinguishes it from sibling detail tools by highlighting the unique body content.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'quote it when answering travel research questions' and 'always link back to the canonical Tuki URL.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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