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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing the return payload (setup steps, supported versions, safety notes, license, stars, check date), which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with what is fetched and follows with the payload contents. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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, listing the returned fields is the key missing piece and the description supplies it. Only the slug's provenance/format and the relationship to search_tools are left implicit.

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% and the single 'slug' parameter is undocumented. The description adds only 'by slug', which hints at the identifier's role but gives no format, source, or example; the baseline for a non-empty undocumented parameter set is a 3.

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 gives a specific verb ('get') plus resource ('one tool') and the key that selects it ('by slug'), then enumerates the record's contents. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search_tools/list_apps beyond implying a single-record fetch.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the follow-up call once a slug is known from search_tools, but the description names no alternative or condition. There is no statement of when not to use it or how to obtain a valid slug.

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