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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait beyond that: full text is returned only for ungated content, warning the agent that a successful call may yield partial content.

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 sentences, no filler, and the lookup key explanation precedes the gating caveat. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the gating caveat covers the main content-shape surprise. Minor gaps: no mention of not-found behavior or whether gated resources return metadata at all, which matters for a closed-world single-item fetch.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it identifies both required parameters and explains that creator_slug and slug are the two segments of the resource's GTM Daily URL. It stops short of stating format constraints (case, allowed characters) beyond the schema's maxLength.

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 and resource ('Get one published resource') and pins down the identity mechanism: two slugs that form the GTM Daily URL. This differentiates it from the discovery-side sibling search_resources, though the description never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied 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?

The URL-parts framing implies this is a direct-lookup tool used when you already have a resource's URL, which is useful routing context. However, it never says when not to use it or points to search_resources for discovery, leaving the agent to infer the split.

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