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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds limited behavioral context beyond that, such as the source of the slug, but does not detail response format, potential errors, or other nuances. Given the low bar set by the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant information or filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it does ('full details'), for which entity ('single broker'), how to identify it ('profile slug'), and where to get the slug ('search_brokers results'). It lacks some edge-case behaviors but is adequately complete for its complexity.

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 schema only defines 'slug' as a string with minLength 1, offering minimal meaning. The description compensates by specifying it's a 'profile slug' and instructing to use the slug from search_brokers results, adding practical context for how to populate the parameter correctly.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get full details for a single broker (agent) by their profile slug.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like search_brokers (search) and get_business (different resource). The clarification that 'broker' is an 'agent' further disambiguates the target.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Call this when the user asks for more information about a specific broker' and instructs to use the slug from search_brokers results. This is clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like contact_broker.

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