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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by previewing the returned fields in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown slug, case sensitivity, or whether the 'still' is an image URL or asset reference.

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, no filler, with the return-content information front-loaded ahead of the input constraint. The field enumeration is long but pays for itself given there is no output schema; only the missing explicit verb keeps it off a 5.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it covers what comes back and how to identify the work. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (invalid or ambiguous slug), which an agent would have to discover by calling it.

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 100% and the schema already states 'page (https://memorabl.es/work/…) or its slug'. The description reinforces the two accepted forms and clarifies that the slug is 'the slug that ends it', which is modest added meaning rather than new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource ('one work') and enumerates the exact payload (creator, category, caption, context, tags, date, original post, still), which separates it from get_creator and get_collection in practice. It lacks an explicit verb ('retrieve'/'fetch') and never names a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to prefer this over search_works when it already has an identifier, or that look_at_works is the choice for browsing. The only instruction is about input format, which is invocation mechanics rather than selection guidance.

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