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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return payload (question, plus topic only when one exists) and the natural follow-up call. It does not say what happens when the slug is unknown, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the precondition, then the result, then the next step. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return value and does so, including the conditional topic. Only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor omission for a single-parameter getter.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the slug, including the 'question:<slug>' fetch-id form. The description's "when you hold a question's slug" only restates the required input, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource (returns the question) and scopes it by the slug precondition, plus states what comes back including the conditional topic. It is distinguishable from sibling getters like parse_get_topic by its input and return, though the distinction is implicit rather than spelled out.

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?

"Use when you hold a question's slug" gives an explicit precondition for invoking it, and the trailing sentence routes the agent onward to parse_get_topic. There is no explicit when-not or alternate-tool exclusion, so it stops 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.