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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the exact payload contents and, notably, that offline or merged tools report their state and return a replacement or alternatives rather than failing.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource and followed by the payload summary. The long field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place since there is no output schema to carry that information.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly, plus it covers the important edge case of offline/merged tools. The only gap is the absence of routing guidance to sibling tools, which matters less for a lookup-by-key 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 100% — slug and locale are both documented in-schema, including the example slug and the locale enum with its default. The description only echoes "by slug" and adds no format, casing, or locale behavior beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Full public details of one AI tool by slug") and enumerates the returned fields, which clearly separates it from list-style siblings like list_tools and search_tools. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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: an agent infers it should call this when it already has a slug and needs the full record. There is no explicit when-to-use versus search_tools or list_tools guidance, and no stated prerequisites, though the slug-based framing is a reasonable signal.

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