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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by disclosing that the result is a 'bounded preview' and that locale/status belong to videos, not tutorials—facts not visible in annotations or the schema.

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 with no filler; the primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers a boundary condition that prevents a common misunderstanding.

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, annotated, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the main data-model caveat. The only small gap is that the 'bounded preview' is not quantified or linked to an alternative way to get full outputs, but this does not block correct invocation.

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 sole parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Tutorial id (uuid)', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond confirming the tutorial is identified singularly, which matches the baseline.

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 action ('Fetch one Tutorializer tutorial definition') and a concrete resource, and distinguishes itself from list/get siblings by singular scope and definition-plus-bounded-preview. The caveat about locale/status further clarifies what this resource is not.

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 description implies use when a caller needs one tutorial definition rather than a list or a video-specific representation, but it never names alternatives or gives an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule. The locale/status clarification is useful context, not a routing instruction.

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