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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying exactly what the return includes (fields) and what it does not include (contact details). This goes beyond the structured data and gives the agent useful behavioral 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?

The entire description is two sentences: the first states the core function and return contents, the second provides usage context and a caveat. Every clause earns its place, with no repetition or fluff. Front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It tells what is returned, when to use it, and what is missing. The sibling context (search_studios) completes the workflow picture. No additional information is needed for correct usage.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter, including a clear description of 'slug' and acceptance of full URLs. The description mentions 'by its slug' but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource ('one studio's full directory listing') and identifies the identifier ('by its slug'). It lists the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from siblings like search_studios which is for searching. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use after search_studios when you need detail on one studio, or when the user names a studio whose gamedevoutsourcing.com slug you already have.' It also notes a limitation ('Contact details are not available here'), which helps set expectations and prevents misuse. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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