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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the payload the caller receives (verdict, install command, credentials, permissions, license, source, maintenance status), which is important since there is no output schema.

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, resource and key, followed by the field inventory. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 and no parameter descriptions, the description compensates by listing exactly what the card returns and how to address it. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing for a simple one-parameter read tool.

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 0% for the single 'slug' parameter, so the description must carry the load. It does reasonably well by naming the identifier type and giving a concrete example value ('github-mcp-server'), which clarifies the expected slug format that the schema leaves bare.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one catalog entry) plus the lookup key (slug) and enumerates what the entry card contains. An agent can tell it apart from list_categories and search_catalog by the by-slug single-item framing, though it never names those siblings 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?

Usage is only implied: 'by slug' suggests this is the tool for when the identifier is already known, and the example slug reinforces that. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_catalog, or what to do when the slug is unknown.

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