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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds a content outline rather than behavior — it says nothing about failure modes for an unknown slug, which is the one behavioral detail an agent would want.

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 sentence with the key identifier front-loaded ahead of the content list. The trailing enumeration is slightly long, especially since an output schema already exists to describe the return shape, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the return shape, the description only needs to place the tool, which it does. The residual gap is sibling disambiguation against run_example and any note on unknown-slug behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both the slug pattern/example and the full/summary enum with its token trade-off. The description only echoes that the example is identified by slug and never mentions the detail parameter, so it adds nothing over the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 — "Returns one worked construction estimate from the site, identified by its slug" — and enumerates the payload (measurements, ordered steps, calculator per step, pinned figure, waste). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling run_example, which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.

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 only implied: an agent infers "use this to read one stored example by slug." There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to run_example or get_calculator, which is the main ambiguity in this sibling cluster.

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