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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does state the return content (summaries, provenance, confidence, actions), which is useful, but it omits any mention of error behavior (e.g., slug not found), read-only assurance, or response shape. For a simple read operation this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the return contents. No redundant words, and every element adds value.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and return contents. It lacks explicit error handling or usage context, but given the simplicity and the absence of annotations, it is reasonably complete. A small gap is the lack of guidance on when not to use it.

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 must clarify the parameter's role. It does so by saying 'by slug', which tells the agent that slug is the unique identifier. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's type/length constraints. It could provide format examples, but the core meaning is clear.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'signal', specifies the lookup key ('by slug'), and enumerates the included content (human/agent summaries, provenance, confidence, actions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_latest_signals or search_signals, which operate on collections or filters.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies the agent needs a slug but does not mention that search_signals should be used to find slugs, nor does it contrast with get_latest_signals or get_daily_briefing. This is a significant gap for a tool with four siblings.

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