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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses a non-obvious outcome: paid agents hide their tools/skills until purchase. It also specifies the needs_input result for invalid slugs and routes to browse_agents, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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 front-loaded and dense, with purposeful caveats and error behavior. The enumerated return fields are useful but partly redundant with the existing output schema, so a touch of trimming would make it fully lean.

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-required-parameter read tool with an output schema, nothing important is missing. Valid input source, expected scope, hidden-content caveat, and invalid-slug behavior are all covered.

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% and already explains the slug and its source, so the description adds little to parameter understanding. It reinforces that the slug must be published, but that is also already implied by 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?

The opening clause names a specific verb and resource ('Get the full store view of ONE published FindAgent marketplace agent by slug') and distinguishes it from browsing/list siblings. It also lists the returned fields, so an agent immediately understands the tool's scope and output focus.

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?

It tells the agent the slug must come from findagent_browse_agents and describes the fallback when a slug is unknown or unpublished. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use or name an alternative, but the by-slug scope makes the intended context clear.

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