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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds useful behavioral constraints: the tool returns only one entity and only approved tools. It does not describe error responses, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to specifying the operation, the resource, and the identifier semantics.

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 simple two-parameter schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. It explains the critical `id` parameter and implies the return is a single tool object, though the effect of the optional `locale` parameter is left implicit. No output schema exists, but the tool's name and 'get one tool' wording sufficiently convey the basic return shape.

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 compensate. It does clarify that `id` accepts a UUID or canonical slug, which is meaningful beyond the raw string schema, but it says nothing about the `locale` parameter. The locale enum values make the intended purpose inferable, but the description still leaves that parameter's semantics unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('tool'), and the unique qualifiers 'one approved tool' and 'by UUID or canonical slug'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_guide, get_stack, search_tools, and the list_* tools.

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 the tool should be used when you already have a UUID or canonical slug and need a single approved tool, but it never explicitly states when to prefer search_tools for discovery or compare_tools for comparison. No exclusion criteria or alternative routing is given, so usage guidance is left to inference.

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