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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: contact details are never returned, and attached productions are ordered active-first — both material to interpreting results.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, that packs identifier formats, returned fields, ordering, and an explicit exclusion without a wasted clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates the returned fields and the contact-details exclusion. It omits what happens when the company is not found and whether the attached productions list is truncated or paginated, which are the only notable gaps.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter. It does: id_or_slug accepts a slug, an id, or a full productionlist.com/production-contact/… URL, which is far more useful than the bare string type in the schema.

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 (returns) and resource (one production company), enumerates the accepted identifier forms, and names the payload contents. The word 'one' plus the identifier-based lookup cleanly separates it from search_companies and get_production.

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 use case (fetch a single known company by slug, id, or URL) but never states when to prefer it over search_companies or what happens when the identifier is unknown. Usage is inferable from 'one ... by slug, id, or ... URL' rather than explicitly guided.

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