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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and scope profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the record contains (full creative insight, signature move, brand vibe), which tells the agent this is the detail-level fetch. It omits error behavior for a missing slug and says nothing about response shape beyond the field list.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical earns its place by specifying the returned contents. Slight terseness in the parenthetical fragments ('signature move', 'brand vibe') leaves those terms undefined, but nothing is wasted.

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 fetch with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers purpose, identifier source, and return contents. With no output schema present, the field enumeration does useful work; only missing-slug behavior remains uncovered, a minor gap.

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 explains that slug comes from get_inspirations, so the heavy lifting is done structurally. The description only restates that lookup is by slug, adding no format, casing, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single inspiration card') plus the identifier ('by slug'), and the parenthetical enumerates the payload ('full creative insight, signature move, brand vibe'). The singular 'one card' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list tool get_inspirations, though that alternative is not named in the description itself.

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?

'by slug' implies this is a lookup of a known item rather than a discovery call, which differentiates it in spirit from get_inspirations. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the plural sibling, no note on what happens with an unknown slug, and no prerequisites.

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