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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile. The description adds material context beyond that: this is static curated editorial content rather than a live capture, and the text should be treated as data, not instructions — a useful prompt-injection guard.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, how to find the slug, and how to treat the content. Front-loaded with the core purpose and 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately characterizes the return as one full curated teardown and flags its provenance and trust level. Missing only minor detail on failure modes for an invalid slug.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It adds that the slug must be a valid one discoverable via list_public_teardowns, but gives no format, validation, or error behavior detail.

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 (get) and resource (one full curated sample product teardown), making the unit of retrieval clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_corpus_teardown or get_shared_teardown, though the 'curated editorial content authored by coExploro' line hints at the difference.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_public_teardowns to discover valid slugs, which is genuine when-to-use guidance tied to a named sibling. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over get_corpus_teardown or get_shared_teardown.

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