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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds real value by disclosing what comes back — verdict, use cases, strengths, limitations, and pricing with source and verified date — which is exactly the payload context an agent needs.

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 with the resource, the lookup key, and the returned fields; nothing is wasted. The colon-list of fields is dense but readable, the only minor cost being a long sentence.

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 no output schema, the definition covers the lookup key, its format, and the shape of the returned entry. Only the absence of explicit fallback guidance (what happens on an unknown id) keeps it short of full completeness.

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% and the single `id` param has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does so with two concrete slug examples, making clear the id is a short tool identifier rather than a numeric key; it does not restate the maxLength constraint.

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+resource ('Full entry for one tool by id') and anchors it with concrete id examples ('cursor', 'claude-code'). It implicitly separates itself from search_tools/compare_tools by being a single-record lookup, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 'by id' implies the caller must already have an id, which hints at using search_tools first, but this is left to inference. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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