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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral constraints: the release must be public, retrieval is by slug, and the agent must not infer ownership or licensing. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 that are direct and front-loaded with the primary use case and key constraint. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only tool with an output schema present, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. It scopes to public releases, names the slug mechanism, and guards against over-inference. Naming list_releases as the alternative for listing would make it fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning. The phrase 'by slug' implies that the id parameter is the slug, but it never explicitly states 'id is the slug' or clarifies what format or slug values are valid. This is helpful but partially relies on inference.

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 and resource: 'get one public release by slug.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_releases and get_composition by scoping it to a single public release fetched by slug.

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 states when to use the tool: 'when an agent needs to get one public release by slug.' It also warns against inferring ownership, licensing, or unpublished availability, but does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_releases for list operations.

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