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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds value by detailing the full set of returned fields (location, elevation, season, etc.), which goes beyond the schema. No side effects are described, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is sufficient.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then efficiently lists the comprehensive return fields. There is no redundancy or filler; every part earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns, covering all major aspects of a hut record. For a read-only tool with a single parameter, the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the result.

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%, so the schema documents the slug parameter. The description adds context by specifying the slug originates from search-huts and gives an example, helping the agent understand the expected value format and source beyond a bare string.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving the full record for one hut, listing the specific fields included. This distinguishes it from siblings like search-huts (searching) and get-hut-availability (availability only), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 implies usage through the slug parameter hint ('from search-huts'), suggesting a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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