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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the response shape changes with locale (full entry vs single-locale body), which is useful, but it does not cover failure behavior for a missing slug or any limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the routing advice. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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?

Purpose, the when-to-use trigger, and the locale-conditional return are all present, and an output schema plus rich annotations cover the rest. The only real gap is that error behavior for an unknown slug is unstated.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes slightly beyond it by explaining the observable consequence of `locale` — you get only a single-locale body instead of the full entry. It does not add anything on `slug` beyond the schema's example.

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 ('Get one knowledge unit by slug') and names the identifier used for lookup, so it is distinguishable from the list_/search_ siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from other singular getters like get_article or get_pattern, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use this once search or list_knowledge has given you a slug,' naming the upstream alternatives. There is no when-not guidance (e.g. what to do if you have no slug), but the required context is clear.

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