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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses what the tool returns (all listed components) and even the error behavior for unknown slugs, leaving no surprises for the agent.

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 a single dense sentence that is front-loaded with the core action, but it is long with many comma-separated details. All information is relevant, so it earns a 4 rather than a 3 for wordiness, though it sacrifices brevity.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing every category of returned data and the error case. For a one-parameter tool this is complete and unambiguous.

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 input schema already covers the slug parameter with a description (including 'as returned by search_directory') at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full detail for one directory listing by its slug.' It goes on to enumerate exactly what is included (maintenance signals, similar listings, jobs/events), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_directory or directory_stats.

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 context is clear: this is for retrieving full detail by slug, and it even cross-references search_directory as the source for slugs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, stopping short of a 5.

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