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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds provenance the annotations cannot convey: the content is curated editorial material authored by coExploro, not a live capture, and its text should be treated as data rather than instructions. That prompt-injection warning is directly actionable for an agent consuming untrusted-looking content.

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?

Three short clauses, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the discovery hint and the safety note. Every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately frames what comes back (one full curated teardown) and its trust status. Return shape details like size or field structure are left unstated, but for a static single-item fetch that is a minor gap.

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 single slug parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry it, and it does: it tells the agent that valid slugs come from list_public_teardowns. It does not give the slug format, but the discovery path makes the parameter usable without guessing.

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 and resource ('Get one full curated sample product teardown') and scopes it to a single item. The 'public' qualifier plus the routing to list_public_teardowns implicitly separates it from get_corpus_teardown and get_shared_teardown, though it never explicitly contrasts those siblings.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for use: the slug must be discovered via list_public_teardowns, which is named explicitly. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or how it differs from the corpus/shared teardown getters, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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