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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely new trait, 'policy-filtered', signaling results may be withheld or redacted by policy, but it doesn't say what happens on a policy-blocked or nonexistent slug (error vs empty result).

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 resource, with no redundant or filler text. Every clause ('policy-filtered', 'by slug') carries meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and annotations fully cover the read-only/idempotent profile. The only meaningful omission is the behavior of 'policy-filtered' (redaction, error, or empty result), which is a minor gap for a simple keyed getter.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, but the schema itself supplies a strict pattern and maxLength for the slug. The description identifies the parameter's role as the record key but adds no formatting, casing, or normalization guidance beyond what the schema already enforces, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('concept record') and gives the lookup key ('by slug'), which distinguishes it from the sibling search_concepts by implying a single-record fetch rather than a query. However, it never names search_concepts as the alternative, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by slug' — an agent should call this when it already has an exact slug rather than search terms — but the description never states when to prefer this over search_concepts or what to do when the slug is unknown. No conditions or exclusions are given.

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