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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint:false, and openWorldHint:false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds useful return context (full structured content plus canonical source URL), but does not describe error or not-found behavior, which matters for a slug lookup.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its document types, followed by what is returned. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating the response contains full structured content and a canonical source URL. With only two well-documented parameters and full annotation coverage, little is missing beyond not-found handling.

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 the slug example values are documented in the schema itself, so the description is not required to explain it. The description says nothing about the optional `type` hint parameter, which changes lookup behavior, leaving the schema to do all the work. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (Growth Choice document) and enumerates the content types it covers. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_docs/search_docs by requiring a slug, but never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"By its slug" implies the tool is for direct lookup when the identifier is already known, which hints at the correct usage. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_docs or list_docs, and no mention of what happens on a miss or an ambiguous type.

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