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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns 'details and nearby spots', which is useful, but it does not disclose potential side effects (it's read-only), error handling, or response format. The behavioral info is minimal.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential information efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It lacks details about the return structure (e.g., format of 'details' and 'nearby spots'), error cases, or any prerequisites, which an agent might need for proper invocation.

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 already documents the 'slugOrId' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds value by specifying that slug is preferred and explaining how to derive it from a URL, going beyond the schema's basic description.

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 it retrieves a single spot with details and nearby spots, using a slug or raw id. The verb 'get' and the distinction from sibling tools like 'find-spots' make the purpose 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 mentions 'by slug (preferred) or raw id', giving a preference for identifier type. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'find-spots' or 'playing-conditions', leaving the agent without clear guidance on tool selection beyond the implied single-spot vs search.

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