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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that the response contains every field the page shows and includes the canonical URL, which clarifies the exact payload an agent can expect.

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?

The description is a single, tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource and key, then states the return scope. Every word contributes useful information.

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 read-only lookup with one well-defined parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It explains the return contents and the singular nature of the result. It does not discuss invalid-slug behavior, but that is not essential for such a straightforward tool.

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 0%, so the description carries some burden, but there is only one parameter and the schema fully defines it with a pattern and maxLength. The description reinforces that slug is the lookup key for a single listing, but it does not add much meaning beyond what the parameter name and schema already convey.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('One DPC Finder listing'), the lookup key ('by slug'), and the scope of the return value ('every field its page shows and its canonical URL'). This distinguishes it from the sibling search_dpc_practices tool, which would return multiple results rather than a single listing.

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?

The phrase 'One DPC Finder listing by slug' establishes the clear usage context: use this tool when you already have a slug and need a single practice. It does not explicitly say 'use search_dpc_practices when you do not have a slug,' but the sibling name and the contrast between singular and search make that alternative inferable.

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