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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description usefully states the shape of the returned content but says nothing about error behavior for invalid slugs, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the slug list. Efficient overall, though the slug enumeration is truncated with an ellipsis and eats a fair share of the text without covering all 14.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description adequately covers the purpose, content shape, and valid inputs. Only the handling of unknown slugs or the meaning of 'query map' remains unstated.

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% and the single slug parameter is self-documenting, but the description goes beyond the schema by enumerating known slugs (how-to-set-pay-ranges, is-our-pay-competitive, etc.), which gives the agent concrete valid values the schema itself cannot express.

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 (returns) and resource (one authored /answers page) and enumerates the structured fields returned: question, short answer, problem frame, citations. No sibling tool does anything comparable, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 mention of 'Known slugs' plus the example list implies the tool is for fetching a known authored answer page, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus sibling tools like search_library or get_library_work, nor any guidance on what happens with an unknown slug.

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