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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context by listing exactly which fields are returned and explicitly stating that the full review text is NOT included and stays on the linked page. This gives the agent a realistic picture of the tool's output limits.

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?

The description is compact and packed with meaning in two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose immediately, then delivers the payload specifics and the one behavioral caveat. Every clause earns its place and no words are wasted.

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 a single required parameter, an output schema already available, and readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description provides exactly what an agent needs to call the tool successfully: where the slug comes from, what the response covers, and what is deliberately omitted. There are no missing instructions for this simple, well-scoped retrieval tool.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, slug, including an example ('1slice-superboof-flower'). The description reinforces that the slug comes from search_reviews, which is genuinely useful context, but it adds no new syntax or formatting details beyond the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one review by slug' with the distinction that it comes 'from search_reviews'. It enumerates the exact payload (lab panel, cannabinoids/terpenes, batch number, price paid, COA link, excerpt) and calls out an explicit non-goal (full text stays on the linked page), making it easy for an agent to tell apart from search_reviews or get_brand.

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 description gives clear context: use this tool when you have a slug from search_reviews and need the detailed lab/panel data for one review. It does not spell out an explicit 'when not to use' list, but 'from search_reviews' and the statement that full text is on the linked page provide good routing and boundary information. A small gap is that it doesn't mention what to do if a slug doesn't exist or how to get slugs besides search_reviews.

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