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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it states that only status=published entries are returned, and that internal corpus-mining signals (agreement %, edge-case flag, source count) are never exposed. This is useful transparency about what the tool will not return. It doesn't mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but the additional context is substantial.

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?

Single sentence, no waste, front-loaded with what it returns. The parenthetical about fru-com is useful but could be seen as extra. Overall efficient and well-structured.

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 read-only lookup tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clarifies the published-only filter and the hidden signals. It does not explain pagination, return format, or what happens when no match is found, but for this simple tool those are minor gaps. The annotations cover safety, so the description's main job is to clarify scope, which it does well.

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 both parameters are fully described in the schema (slug pattern, query maxLength). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (looked up by exact slug or deterministic keyword match) and resource (published, edition-pinned GEO answer-first content). Names the public-facing equivalent page. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_reference_series or get_home_values, which may also return content. The scope is clear but sibling differentiation is absent.

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 implied: use when you need published answer-first content by slug or keyword. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. An agent must infer that this is the tool to call for this type of content from its own knowledge of the domain.

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