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 behavioral context: contact details are never returned and the contacts field only signals whether contacts are on file — an important privacy/return-content constraint not present in structured data.

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 that front-loads the verb, resource, and accepted identifier forms before the field enumeration. Dense but every clause carries payload information; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 takes on return-value disclosure and does enumerate the key fields, plus the contacts caveat. Safety is covered by annotations. Missing only failure behavior for invalid slugs/ids, which is a minor gap for a one-parameter read.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Slug (preferred), numeric id, or the page URL'). The description restates the same accepted forms without adding syntax, precedence, or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns one production') and enumerates the payload (synopsis, stage, dates, locations, companies, people with roles), which implicitly distinguishes it from search_productions. An agent can tell this is a single-record fetch 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?

Usage is implied by the identifier-based lookup ('by slug, id, or productionlist.com/... URL'), so the agent can infer this is a direct-fetch tool. However, it never names search_productions as the alternative for when the identifier is unknown, nor states any when-not conditions.

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