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 value beyond that by enumerating the returned content (problem, AI workflow mechanics, tools, implementation notes, source link), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not say what happens for an unknown slug, so it is not 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the key, the scope ('one use case'), and the payload. No filler, no repetition 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to call it and to anticipate the shape of the result. The only meaningful omission is behavior on a missing or invalid slug.

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 100%: the slug parameter carries a regex pattern, length bounds, and a concrete example ('shipper-past-due-invoice-collections'). The description only restates 'by slug', adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 — 'Full detail for one use case by slug' — and immediately names the payload (problem, workflow, tools, implementation notes, source link), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly name the sibling search_use_cases as the alternative, so it stops 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'full detail for one use case by slug' suggests it is the follow-up to a search that yields slugs, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to search_use_cases / get_ai_services as alternatives. The agent must infer the retrieval workflow.

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