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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds content-scope information the annotations cannot convey: the response is the *full* text and it *includes the FAQ*, which sets expectations for a tool with no output schema. Unknown-slug behavior is left unstated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the qualifier and input sourcing folded into a parenthetical. There is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and closed-world scope, the description supplies what the agent needs: which document is fetched, how to address it, and that the FAQ is part of the payload. Only error handling on a bad slug is unaddressed, which is minor here.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the slug semantics that the schema defines ('slug or full URL'). Its only marginal addition is identifying the sibling tools that produce a valid slug; the optional 'agent' parameter is not mentioned at all.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (return the full text of one answer) and pins the scope to exactly one record, contrasting with the plural list_answers and search_answers siblings. An agent can tell immediately that this is the retrieval step that follows a search or list.

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 parenthetical '(by slug from search_answers or list_answers, or by its fortyfwd.com URL)' tells the agent exactly where the input comes from and thereby when to reach for this tool rather than the search tools. It stops short of stating exclusions or failure conditions, but the sequencing guidance is clear.

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