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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it hints at return richness ('full structured details') and that one slug works across all types, but never states this is a read-only, non-mutating lookup, nor what happens on an invalid type/slug pair. It discloses the search-then-fetch pattern but omits failure and permission behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: the action and keys come first, the supported types second, and the prerequisite third. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

There is no output schema, so the description does have to signal the return value, and 'full structured details' does that at a high level. For a two-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema, the only meaningful gap is the unstated read-only nature and error behavior.

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 100% and the schema already documents both 'slug' (from search tools) and 'type' (with an enum), so the description adds little beyond restating 'type + slug'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the semantic work.

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 ('Get full structured details for one resource') plus the required key ('by type + slug'), which is precise. It enumerates all supported resource types, but never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_tool, leaving a small ambiguity about which retriever to pick.

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?

Explicitly gives the prerequisite workflow: 'Use the search_* tools first to find the slug,' which tells the agent this is a second-step retrieval after search. It does not say when-not to use it or contrast with get_tool, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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