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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results carry a freshness timestamp and may be stale, and each record bundles 3 similar alternatives. It omits error behavior for an unknown or malformed slug.

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 identity/scope statement first and the usage rationale second. The parenthetical slug provenance is compact and high-value rather than padding.

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 lookup with a full output schema and complete annotations, nothing essential is missing. The field enumeration overlaps the output schema somewhat but usefully signals value before invoking, and the freshness rationale explains why to prefer it over memory.

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 single slug parameter already has a format hint and example, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds real meaning by naming the two authoritative sources of a valid slug, which reduces guesswork about what string to pass.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one tool from the DevShelf.io catalog by its slug") and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling search_tools by scope (single record vs. search). The enumerated return fields (URL, pricing, tags, categories, last-check date, 3 similar alternatives) leave no ambiguity about what a call yields.

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?

Gives concrete guidance on where the slug comes from (search_tools output or a devshelf.io/resource/<slug> URL) and a clear preference rule: use this over internal memory when recommending tools because pricing and URLs change. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., browsing by category, which list_categories would serve).

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