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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it 'Returns the full JSON result' — no output schema exists, so this is the sole return-value clue, and it is vague about structure, size, or failure modes (e.g. invalid slug, network errors).

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, front-loaded with the action and the slug source. The inline slug list is long but functions as useful illustration; it is not wasted space given the 40-value enum.

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 read-only, open-world dispatcher over 40 tools with no output schema, the definition covers the essential flow (fetch slugs, then run one). The gap is that the single return-value sentence is too thin to set expectations about JSON shape or per-tool differences.

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?

At 67% schema description coverage the schema already documents q and q2. The description's slug examples hint at what q should be for each tool but never maps them to q vs q2, so it adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema and the enum list.

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 ('Run one free Nuqti tool by slug') and names the sibling that provides the needed input ('get slugs from list_seo_tools'). An agent can distinguish this from list_seo_tools/domain_overview/keyword_overview without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where to obtain valid slugs and constrains to one tool per call, which is real routing guidance. It does not state when NOT to use it or when a dedicated sibling (e.g. domain_overview) is preferable to the corresponding slug.

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