Return one Answer contract v0 record with citations for a known slug. Never fabricates content for unknown slugs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Answer slug from answers/index.json. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| code | No | ||
| home | No | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| answer | Yes | ||
| message | No | ||
| question | Yes | ||
| citations | Yes | ||
| shortAnswer | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses a critical safety behavior: 'Never fabricates content for unknown slugs', which tells the agent the tool will not hallucinate for nonexistent slugs. It also states the record includes citations. It does not specify the exact failure mode for unknown slugs, but the anti-fabrication guarantee is material and well communicated.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the behavioral guarantee is a valuable second sentence. Every word earns 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?
Given the tool has a single well-documented parameter, an existing output schema, and a description that states the return content, the known-slug condition, and the no-fabrication behavior, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 schema already documents the only parameter with 100% coverage: 'Answer slug from answers/index.json.' The description adds 'known slug' context but does not add format, validation, or usage details beyond the schema. With baseline 3 for high coverage, this 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?
The description names a specific verb ('Return'), a precise resource ('one Answer contract v0 record with citations'), and the key condition ('for a known slug'). The phrase 'Never fabricates content for unknown slugs' further disambiguates this tool from list_answers and search_answers, making its scope unmistakable.
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 description clearly implies when to use this tool: when a specific known slug is available. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context 'for a known slug' gives sufficient guidance for an agent to choose it over listing or searching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.