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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: contact details are never included, and the contacts field instead explains how members reach the production — a return-content caveat an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource, identifier forms, return contents, and the query intent without filler. It is dense and long, but every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating fields and the contacts caveat. It omits failure behavior (e.g., unknown slug) and pagination/size limits, which are minor for a single-record lookup.

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 100% (baseline 3), but the description goes beyond it by naming the concrete URL shape 'productionlist.com/production/…', which the schema only calls 'the page URL'. This removes ambiguity about which URL form is accepted.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('One production') with the accepted identifier forms, plus a concrete enumeration of returned fields (synopsis, stage, dates, locations, companies, people with roles). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_productions and get_company.

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?

Provides an explicit intent trigger: 'This is the tool for who is producing / casting / directing X.' The identifier-based framing implies it is the lookup tool versus search, but it never explicitly states when to prefer search_productions instead, so no full 5.

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