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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable return-content detail (what fields the setup includes and the tested/researched label) that annotations cannot convey.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists the payload contents; every clause adds information with no filler.

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?

Simple read tool with complete annotations and full parameter documentation. With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating returned fields, leaving nothing essential unknown to a caller.

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% for the single slug parameter, so baseline is 4. The description adds provenance context by tying the slug to search_setups, which is genuine meaning beyond the schema's bare 'The setup 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?

Specific verb+resource ('the full setup for a slug') with an enumeration of exactly what the record contains: audience, steps, prompt, snags, sources, and label. It is clearly distinct from search_setups, which only discovers slugs.

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?

Phrasing 'a slug from search_setups' implicitly routes the agent: search first, then fetch by slug. It gives clear context for when to reach for this tool but doesn't state exclusions or contrast explicitly with get_skill.

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