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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of transparency. It clarifies the operation is for one published agent and lists returned components (brief, schedule, recent findings with sources). However, it does not mention failure behavior for invalid/non-published slugs, potential access restrictions, or whether 'recent findings' are filtered in any way.

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 tight sentence, front-loads the core action ('One published agent by slug'), then lists key return contents. It is concise and scannable, though it could add a phrase explaining where to get a slug without losing brevity.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameterhol. The description covers the resource identifier and the main return elementsaren. But it doesn't address what happens if the slug doesn't exist or agent isn't published, and doesn't explicitly direct users to search_agents for discovery. Given the low complexityyb, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 0% and the sole parameter 'slug' has no schema description. The description only mentions 'by slug' without explaining what a slug is, how to find one, or its expected format. This does not meaningfully compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 says 'One published agent by slug: its brief, schedule and recent findings with sources.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing (get one agent by slug) and lists the included fields, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_agents or other get_* siblings, but the singular 'one... by slug' strongly implies a direct lookup.

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 identifies the identifier (slug) and singular nature, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_agents, how to obtain a valid slug, or any preconditions (e.g., agent must be published). There is no exclusion or explicit alternative.

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