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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return payload (Coghelm page plus job guides that recommend the tool), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits failure behavior for unknown slugs, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that covers purpose, parameter example, and return contents with no filler. Slightly dense in its trailing clause, but every element 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it fetches and what comes back. It leaves a minor gap around error handling for an invalid slug, but is otherwise sufficient to call 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single 'slug' parameter. It clarifies the parameter's meaning with two example values, which helps, but does not state the slug format or where an agent obtains one.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('one tool by slug') and even gives concrete slug examples ('claude', 'granola'). It implicitly separates itself from search_tools by emphasizing a single lookup, but never explicitly names a sibling.

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 implied: 'by slug' signals this is a lookup for an already-known identifier rather than discovery, which nudges the agent toward search_tools for browsing. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative is stated.

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