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 adds genuinely useful behavioral detail that annotations cannot: exactly what comes back (summary, table of contents, statistics, verification record, two sample claims), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits failure behavior for an unknown slug, keeping it below a 5.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the tool's role and then the payload contents. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of enumerating the returned sections. It falls short only on input semantics for 'slug', which is the one thing an agent still needs in order to call it successfully.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it — yet the word 'slug' never appears and nothing says what identifies a dossier or where to obtain one (e.g., from search_archive or list_topics). An agent must guess the expected identifier format.

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 ('preview') plus resource ('dossier'), enriched by an enumeration of what the preview contains (summary, TOC, statistics, verification record, two sample claims). The word 'premium' implies a fuller sibling (get_dossier) exists, but it is never named explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

'Free preview' implicitly signals when to use it — when the agent wants sample content without committing to the full dossier — but there is no explicit statement of when-not to use it or a named alternative among the siblings (get_dossier, get_research_pack). Usage must be inferred from the adjective 'preview'.

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