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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Fetch' is consistent with a read-only operation. It adds context about the resource being a 'public organic prompt' and the purpose of retrieving the AI-search question, but it does not disclose error behavior, response shape, or any edge cases. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the added context is modest, earning a 3.

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, well-structured sentence that begins with the action ('Fetch') and conveys the key details in under 25 words. No fluff or repetition; every word adds value.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and usage scenario. It does not specify return format or errors, but given the simplicity, the core context is adequate. Siblings are also visible to the agent, providing further disambiguation. A 4 reflects the minor missing detail around parameter semantics.

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 has only one parameter, 'slug', with zero description coverage. The description mentions 'by slug' indicating it's the identifier, but provides no information about slug format, origin, or example values. With schema coverage at 0%, the description does not sufficiently compensate, leaving the agent to guess what a valid slug is.

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 uses explicit verb 'Fetch' and specifies the resource 'one public organic prompt' and the identifying parameter 'slug'. It also ties to a concrete use case ('inspect the exact AI-search question behind a result'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like parse_get_brand or parse_search.

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 includes a clear usage context: 'when the user wants to inspect the exact AI-search question behind a result.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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