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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description discloses the payload shape (dated evidence list, six named markdown sections, solution classes in the fix section) and imposes a citation obligation plus the existence of a German version URL — real behavioral context not in the annotations. It stops short of describing response envelope, size, 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the long field enumeration is dense but each item sets a real expectation for a tool with no output schema. The closing citation sentence is short and actionable; only the field list borders on over-long.

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 carries the full burden of describing the return value, and it does so section by section, including the evidence list and all six markdown bodies. It also covers the citation requirement and the German-version pointer, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call and use the result correctly.

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%, so slug format and the en/de locale with English fallback are already fully documented. The description reinforces the slug scope and mentions the German version URL, but adds no syntax, format, or selection guidance for locale beyond what the schema states — baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource ("The complete friction record for a slug") and then enumerates exactly what the record contains: status, dates, confidence, severity, time cost, categories, channels, license context, error codes, evidence list, and six markdown body sections. The words "complete" and "for a slug" separate it cleanly from the list/search siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers it should be called when it already has a slug and needs the whole record rather than a listing. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. list_frictions or search_frictions for discovery) appears in the description; the hint that slugs come from search/list results lives only in the schema.

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