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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the full description is returned by default, and descriptionTruncated/nextOffset signal remaining text — valuable because there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is retrieved and how it is identified, followed by paging behavior. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

Covers identification, default return size, and truncation for a zero-required-parameter tool. It leaves unstated what happens if neither name nor slug is supplied, or if both are given and disagree, which is the main remaining gap.

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 baseline would be 3. The description earns the extra point by explaining the relationship between offset, maxChars, and the nextOffset/descriptionTruncated continuation loop, which the schema descriptions only hint at.

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 full details for one spot') plus the two lookup keys, slug or name, and scopes it to Nanukamachi-dori. An agent can distinguish it from the list-spots sibling by the 'one spot' framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives clear operational context: look up by slug or name, and page with offset/maxChars for long articles. It stops short of explicit exclusions such as when to prefer search or list-spots over a direct slug fetch, so it is clear context without routing rules.

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