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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup and usefully discloses what the response contains, but says nothing about behavior on an unknown slug (error vs empty), access restrictions, or how large the record is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the lookup key first and then the returned content. The field list is dense but each item conveys what the agent will receive, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description does its part by listing returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs. However, error behavior for a missing slug and any caveats about the record's size or freshness are absent.

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 0% and the only hint is the property name 'slug'. The description confirms the lookup key is a slug, which is slight added meaning, but gives no format, source, or example of a valid slug.

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 names a specific resource and access pattern: a full record ('fiche complète') of one association looked up by slug, and it enumerates the payload (score, breakdown, contact details, SIREN, RNA, donation links). That clearly separates it from search_ngos or top_ngos, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus search_ngos, compare_ngos, or get_donation_paths, and no prerequisite such as 'requires a slug obtained from search_ngos'. Usage is only implied by the word 'slug'.

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