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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's real contribution is disclosing the return payload: license, commercial_use, install, repository, stars, last push, preinstalled surfaces. The caveat 'as the source states it' usefully signals that install data is passed through unnormalized and may be unreliable — genuine behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 resource and its provenance, then a tight field list. Nothing is padded and no sentence fails to earn its place.

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 what comes back and does so with a concrete field list, which is the key missing piece for an agent. It does not address whether the record can be absent for an unknown id, a minor gap for a 2-param lookup 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%, so both parameters (id, lang) are fully documented in the schema, including the id format example and the lang enum's skip behavior. The description reinforces only that the id comes from find_tools and says nothing about lang, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Full catalog record for one tool id') and explicitly ties the input to a sibling's output ('returned by find_tools'), which cleanly separates it from find_tools itself. An agent can tell instantly that this is the detail-fetch step of a find-then-get flow.

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?

The phrase 'one tool id returned by find_tools' establishes the required precondition and the intended call sequence. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this to search' exclusion, but the dependency on find_tools output makes the usage context unambiguous.

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