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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that only public, live listings are returned and that nothing beyond the creator's public share-page description is exposed.

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 concise sentences; the first states the operation and result fields, the second clarifies availability and scope boundaries. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates what is returned and what constraints apply. It could mention not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 fully documents the single parameter, including format and an example ('Bot slug from search_bots, e.g. 'daili''). The description adds little beyond saying retrieval is by slug, so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 action and resource ('One listing by slug') and enumerates the returned fields (creator, share link, description, tags, dates, editorial notes). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_guide or search_bots.

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 intended use is implied: retrieve a single bot listing by its slug. The schema hints that the slug comes from search_bots, but the description itself does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions.

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