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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that a tool is returned; it does not state error behavior (e.g., unknown slug), whether 'free' restricts the result set, or any authentication or rate-limit context.

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?

Two brief sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The example earns its place as a concrete illustration.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it says what is returned and by which identifiers. It omits error handling and the sibling distinction with list_tools, which an agent might need when discovery is ambiguous.

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 description repeats the same accepted forms (slug, title, path) plus an example already present in the schema. It adds no semantic detail beyond the structured field.

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 'Return' and resource 'one free Cutshed tool', plus the accepted identifiers (slug, title, path). It distinguishes itself from list_tools by returning a single tool, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 example slug implies usage when you already know a tool's identifier, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use condition or points to list_tools as the alternative for discovery. Usage is only implied.

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