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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context by explaining the 400 'already exists' error meaning and the behavioral difference between POST and GET variants, without contradicting the 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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: the core transformation, the required HTTP method and alternative behavior, and the error semantics. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description is complete enough for a simple one-parameter tool with read-only annotations. It covers the operation, method caveat, and error meaning. Not specifying the exact response structure is a minor gap since the output is implied by 'available slug.'

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 schema only defines 'desired' as a string with no description. The description compensates by calling it a 'desired page handle' and explaining that it is transformed into an available slug, adding semantic meaning beyond the raw 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 description states a clear action and resource: 'Turn a desired page handle into an available slug.' This is specific and understandable. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from, but the purpose is distinct enough from the listed siblings.

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 explicitly says 'Must POST' and contrasts this with 'the GET variant of this endpoint ignores input entirely and derives a slug from the account name.' This gives the agent clear conditions for when to use this tool and what the alternative does.

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