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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to establish safety. It adds useful context about the returned payload, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 with no filler. The primary return summary is front-loaded, and the sibling-tool routing is placed at the end, earning its place.

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 simple read-only get-by-slug tool, the description covers the main return contents and the reverse lookup path. With no output schema, it would benefit from stating the slug parameter explicitly, but the description is otherwise sufficient for invocation.

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 schema documents context and include_next, but the required slug parameter has no property description. The tool description's 'One estate' weakly implies slug refers to an estate, but it does not explicitly state the expected identifier, so the agent must infer it.

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 exactly what is returned: one estate with its owning provider, full member roster with per-member API counts and bands, and estate-wide rating. It also distinguishes itself from get_provider_estate by naming the reverse direction, so an agent can tell the two apart immediately.

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 explicitly names get_provider_estate(slug) as the alternative for going from a provider to its owning company, making the when-to-use boundary clear. It implies the primary case: given an estate, retrieve its full estate object.

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