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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely new facts beyond them: 'No authentication needed' and the explicit non-execution/non-grant boundary. It does not, however, say what happens on a missing or unpublished slug.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the caveats trailing. The contents enumeration is slightly listy but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the payload includes; there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Given that, the description covers the remaining agent-facing unknowns — auth requirement, scope of contents, and the limits of what the call does — leaving only the sibling ambiguity as a gap.

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?

The single parameter 'slug' has 0% schema description coverage (only a regex and maxLength, no prose), and the description never mentions it at all — not that it is the agent's unique published identifier, nor what an unpublished/mistyped slug yields. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: 'Read the full published blueprint,' and enumerates exactly what that blueprint contains (inputs, outputs, tools, deliverables, evaluations, examples). It is far more informative than the title, but it never distinguishes itself from the nearby sibling get_agent_spec, so an agent still has to guess which of the two returns 'the blueprint'.

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 'read the full published blueprint,' and the description rules out two adjacent capabilities ('does not execute an agent or grant access to external systems'). However, it never says when to pick this over get_agent_spec or search_agents, which are the real competing tools.

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